1921-05-02

BUSINESS OP THE HOUSE-SATURDAY SITTINGS

Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker I beg to move the motion of which I gave notice on Friday:

That on and alter Saturday, the 7th May next, until the end of the present session, the House shall sit on Saturdays, and that the order of business on Saturday shall be the same as on Friday.


Mr. CRERAR:: That seems a littlfe bit early.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There are quite a number of committees working, and I myself am on one or two. If we can get another week or so to enable the committees to get along with their work, I think the business cf the House will be expedited as rapidly as if this motion carries.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think that
Saturday sittings will interfere with the work of the committees. They sit only in the forenoon as a rule, and rarely on Saturday. Even should there be a Saturday sitting of a committee, it would be in the forenoon and not in the afternoon.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have a lot of other work to do.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, and I purpose to stay home pretty steadily myself.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am glad to hear that statement.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Is it not somewhat unusual to take this step before the Budget is brought down? Perhaps the Prime Minister could give us some assurance to-day as to when we may expect the Budget?


Arthur Meighen: I do not think that this is very unusual; but I may say to my hon. friend that we expect the Budget to be brought down at the end of this week, or the beginning of next.


Mr. BELAND:: If the House sits next Saturday, will the Government consent to allow Public Bills and Orders to be taken up on that day? Every other day is occupied by Government measures, and there are a number of Public Bills of considerable importance, the promoters of which, if this motion is carried, will not be afforded an opportunity of proceeding with them, this session.


Arthur Meighen: I shall be glad to confer with my hon. friend and will meet him in any way possible, for this Saturday, at any rate. I do not know what Bills he has in mind.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I have one particular Bill in mind, and I am sorry it will be

absolutely impossible for me to be here next Saturday. Perhaps the Prime Minister might agree to the following Saturday?


Arthur Meighen: Saturday following,
then.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. J. DENIS (Joliette) :: The Income Tax Act having been modified every year now for three or four years, and having become difficult of application, may 1 emphasize the importance of the Government's proceeding with the Bill which' now stands on the Order Paper in the name of the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) to consolidate the Income Tax Act?
I think it is of considerable importance that this Bill be passed at this session in order chat it may be applied as soon as possible.


Arthur Meighen: I recognize the force of the hon. gentleman's representation. The Minister of Finance, I believe, intends to go on with this measure, and personally I feel that it is of the importance which the hon. member ascribes to it. The Minister of Finance has been urged pretty strongly to introduce his Budget as soon as possible; otherwise he would have been ready by this time to proceed with this Bill.



BOARD OF TRADE REPORTS-BLANK FORMS IN FRENCH

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. M. DECHENE ' (Montmagny) : Lately the Minister of the Interior has sent out blank forms to the different boards of trade, asking for their reports according to law. The Montmagny Board of Trade, of which I am the secretary, has asked the minister for a blank form in French, and I have been informed that there is no such form at present. Is it the intention of the department to have these forms printed in French as well as in English? The secretaries of the boards of trade throughout the province of Quebec are practically all French, and it is necessary that they should have French blank forms if they are to send in any reports.
Arthur Meighen: I really cannot speak with
information on the point. I was not of. the impression that this matter was under the Minister of the Interior, but the hon. member may possibly be right. At any rate, I will take it up with the proper minister, and it seems to me that the hon. member's wishes might be met.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE-FURTHER LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Has the House now before it all the legislation which the Government proposes for this session? I ask this question in view of the fact that we are to begin sitting on Saturdays.


Arthur Meighen: We have not yet quite all the legislation which it is intended to bring down. I should make a statement at an early date as to what other legislation there may be. Should the Grand Trunk legislation not result in an agreement with the Grand Trunk, then we should have to give consideration to the need of further legislation in that regard. A Bill respecting the Conservation Act will be brought down also. I cannot, at the moment, make a statement as to what other legislation there will be but whatever there is yet to be brought down will be very little.



PUBLIC BILLS AND ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Henri Sévérin Béland: May I revert for a moment to my previous ques

tion regarding the taking up of public Bills and Orders? I suggested to the Prime Minister that Saturday of next week be devoted to public Bills and Orders, if that were agreeable to him. May I ask, instead, that next Monday, a week from to-day, be set aside for the purpose, as some of the Bills will have to be referred to committees of the House. I may remark that the House a few days ago agreed that a certain Bill should be read the second time and then referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and I have in mind this particular Bill.


Arthur Meighen: I suggest that I be given an opportunity to consult with the hon. member regarding the particular subjects in which he is interested, and if we cannot cctoe to an arrangement satisfactory to himself, he may bring the matter up on the Orders of the Day to-morrow.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 131 (from the Senate) for the relief of Alfred William Wells.-Mr. Boys.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 123 (from the Senate), for the relief of Joseph Sorton-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 124 (from the Senate), for the relief of Gladys Frances Annie Wheeler Bernard.-Mr. McQuarrie.
Bill No. 125 (from the Senate), for the relief of William Carr.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 126 (from the Senate), for the relief of Ida Florence Keenan..-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 127 (from the Senate), for the relief of Gertrude May Turner.-Mr. Ross.
Bill No. 128 (from the Senate), for the relief of James Henry Bigrow.-Mr. Harrison.
Bill No. 129 (from the Senate), for the relief of Emelina Dunsmore.-Mr. Morphy.
QUESTIONS:
(Questions answered orally are indicate* by an asterisk.)

*Mr. McDONALD:: 1.	Have any criticisms or charges against the Board of Hearing of the Civil Service Commission been received by the Government from any Civil Service organization during the past yearV
2.	If so, have these criticisms or charges been investigated, and by whom?
3.	Was the organization making such charges,, if any, represented at any investigation made? If not, why?
4.	Was any report of the investigation sent; the organization referred to? If not, why?
5.	Is it the intention of the Government or the Civil Service Commission to reconstitute the Board of Hearing, giving the whole service adequate representation thereon?
6.	Are any members of the Civil Service, now on the Board of Hearing, paid or to be paid any additional salary or honorarium for their services on the said Board?


Right Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 

CIVIL SERVICE-PROPOSED WHITLEY COUNCILS

*Mr. McDONALD:: 1.	Have any representations re the establishment of Whitley or Joint Councils in the Civil Service been received by the Government from any organization, either within or without the service ?
2.	If so, what consideration has been or will be given said representations?
3.	Has any recommendation as to the establishment of these councils in the service been laid before Council by any member of the Government?
4.	If so, when and what action has been taken thereon? If no action has been taken, when may it be expected?


Right Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	Yes, from the Trades and Labour Congress.
2.	The matter is under the consideration of the Government.
3.	Any recommendation of a minister to Council is confidential.
4.	Answered by Nos. 2 and 3.
CIVIL SERVICE-SUPERANNUATION *Mr. McDONALD:
1.	Is it the intention of the Government to introduce a permanent superannuation bill for the Civil Service during the present session?
2.	Have any representations been received from any Civil Service organization as to the need of such Bill and submitting a draft of same?
3.	If so, have these representations been considered?
4.	If not, will they be considered and will the said organization be given opportunity to present its views?
5.	Is it proposed to dismiss aged civil servants, under reorganization, before such Superannuation Bill is passed?


Right Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	No.
2.	Yes.
3.	The representations are being considered.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	Any civil servants retired will be retired under the Civil Service Retirement Act, unless there is special cause for dismissal.



CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND OUTSIDE SERVICE

*Hon. Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Does the Government intend to introduce legislation during the present session of Parliament with a view to taking away from the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission the outside service?
2.	What is the total number of civil servants in the outside service?


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Dropped. The question has been answered by the introduction of a Bill by the Government dealing with the matter.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-ST. ROSALIE OUTSTANDING BONDS-INTEREST PAYABLE-DOMINION BONDS-INTEREST

*Hon. Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Canadian National Railway to erect a divisions railway shops at St. Hyacinthe, Quebec?
2.	If so, what is the estimated cost of said proposed shops?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	No; but the Management propose to enlarge a small engine house at St. Rosalie Junction, about 2.3 miles east of St. Hyacinthe, sufficiently to take care of both Canadian National and Grand Trunk engines.
2.	About $34,000.


Mr. REID (Mackenzie) :: 1.	What is the total amount outstanding of
(a)	War bonds, (b) Victory Bonds?
2.	What is the annual amount of interest payable on (a) Tax free bonds and (b) Taxable bonds?


Arthur Meighen: As at April 30, 1921.
1.	(a) $190,296,800; (b) $1,797,739,850.
2.	(a) $75,046,803.75; (b) $33,343,728.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN

Mr. MCDONALD:: 



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY-PATENTS TO LANDS

Mr. WHITE:: .
1.	Has the Canadian Pacific Railway Company received patents to all lands agreed to be granted to it by the Government of Canada?
2.	If not, for what acreage in each province of Canada have patents not yet been issued?
3.	Are there any reasons why patents should not be issued at once to all unpatented lands?
4.	If so, what are the reasons?
5.	If the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has not received patents to all Dominion lands to which it may be entitled, under what statutes is it still entitled to grants of land and what is the acreage to which patents have not yet issued, (a) under each statute, and (b) in each province?


Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	No.
2.	Manitoba, 773 acres; Saskatchewan, 3,080 acres; Alberta, 3,130 acres. Not yet selected, 5,828 acres.
3.	Yes.
4.	Some details of exchange due to revest-ment yet to he adjusted and balance of land yet to be selected.
5.	(a) 44 Vic., Chap. 1, (Main Line), (b)
Manitoba, 773 acres; Saskatchewan, 520 acres; Alberta, 3130 acres.	.
(a) 53 Vic., Chap. 4; 54-55 Vic., Chap. 10, (Souris Branch), (b) Saskatchewan, 1,772 acres.
(a) 57-58 Vic., Chap. 6, (Pipestone Extension), (b) Saskatchewan, 226 acres.



INCOME TAXES FOR 19 20

Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	What is the amount of Income Tax collected for the year 1920?
2.	What percentage of such amount has been applied to collection and administration expenses?


Arthur Meighen: 1 & 2. Taxes on income for the year 1920 are not due or payable under the Act until April 30, 1921. The information is therefore not yet available.
1.	How many temporary employees were released or given notice of release during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1921?
2.	How many temporary employees were engaged during that period?
3.	How many temmporary employees were transferred from one branch, office or department to another during that period?
4.	Of new temporary employees taken on, how many were returned soldiers?
5.	Have any returned soldiers been released from the service since the "blanketing in" order was prepared and passed? If so, how many?
6.	How many new employees have been engaged to replace the said returned soldiers, how many of these new employees were returned soldiers, and in what departments and branches did this take place?
7.	What notice, if any, is given temporary employees likely to be released, of other opportunities in the service?	.8.	Has the Government or the Civil Service Commission any data as to the cost to the country of labour turnover due to the training -	_i____________^ 4-v,^ ioco /-.n tVia inp.vita.ble
percentage of inefficients?
9.	If so, what was the total amount of this cost during the past fiscal year?



UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF PAPERS

Mr. STEVENS:: For a return showing (a) The number of officials transferred from Calgary, Winnipeg, Otta-wa, Halifax, or other points in Canada to Vancouver (Soldiers' Re-establishment Department) since November 1, 1920.
(b)	Whether said transferees are married or single?
(c)	Number of officials in Vancouver whose services have been dispensed with since November 1, 1920 (Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment Department), also number' to whom notice of retirement has been given?
(d)	Names of those transferred into Vancouver and positions to which they were assigned?



GRAND TRUNK ARBITRATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 80 respecting the Grand Trunk arbitration.
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) moved concurrence in the amendments.
He said: I can explain the amendments, I think, very briefly. The first amendment is to leave out all the words after "appointed" to the end of subclouse (a) and substitute the following:
"Directors; provided that the substituted board of directors of the company need not comprise more than five members; that until otherwise provided by the board a majority of the directors shall constitute a quorum; and that it shall not be necessary that any of the directors shall reside in England or be qualified by ownership of stock."
The whole purpose of that is to take care of a possible eventuality of resignations going in together, leaving not enough members to constitute a quorum to accept the resignations of those who have resigned. To cover that eventuality it was provided that the substituted board, first of all, should not comprise more than five. We believe that has to be legislated for because the present charter calls for more. The rest of it is merely to take care of the eventuality of directors resigning at once leaving not sufficient quorum to care for the situation and carry on, pending appointments. The change is designed to meet a legal point. After reflection it was felt this proceeding would be better and more safe than the other, but the effect is exactly the same.
The next change is that paragraph (c) is struck out. That paragraph provided that meetings of the board of directors of the company for the transmission of any business may be validly held in Canada or elsewhere. ^ Instead of that the following paragraph is substituted by amendment:
' (c) that the head office of the company and the meetings of its board of directors for the transaction of any business shall after the substitution of directors as herein provided for be in Canada."
It was feared that under the old wording the meeting at which the new board was appointed might not be legal. By the change it is intended to make clear that it may be legal, and that subsequently all meetings shall be held in Canada. In a word, that again just meets the intention of the legislation, but is considered by the draughtsman who draughted the Bill, and by the Justice Department, as better.
In paragraph (e) the words "the company shall not" in line 41 are struck out and a substitution made. This clause is intended to make clear what the effect of the old legislation was: that the Grand Trunk's costs of the arbitration shall be 
paid, not by the Grand Trunk, because if so it would ultimately be paid by the country, but out of assessments levied against dividends coming to the debenture and guaranteed stockholders, and the words "that the company shall not be bound to see to the application of the moneys requisitioned or otherwise responsible for or bear any of the costs of the arbitration" are amended to this extent: "neither the company nor the Government as guarantor of interest and dividends shall be bound," etc. Then, to make it still more clear that there is to be no liability on the country nr on the Grand Trunk for their share of the costs, the following is added:
"And moreover, after substitution of directors of the company as herein provided for, the company, and the (Government as guarantor of interest and dividends on the debenture and guaranteed stock, shall be entitled to deduct and retain from such interest and dividends as may thereafter become payable upon the said stocks any and all costs and expenses connected with the arbitration heretofore or hereafter advanced, paid or incurred by either the company or the Government, other than such as under the agreement of March 8, 1920, are payable by the Government."
That removes all possibility of legal doubt, as the Government is advised, as to the costs being collectible except out of dividends coming to the debenture and guaranteed stockholders.
In subclause (g) of clause 1 the word "arbitrators" is struck out and the word "arbitration" substituted therefor. That is merely to correct a clerical error.
The following is added as section 4 of the Bill:
For the purpose of carrying out the substitution of directors of the company herein provided for, any director of the company may vacate his office by resignation in writing submitted to the board at any meeting of the directors, and if one or more of the directors of the company, not exceeding five at any one time, shall in the manner aforesaid vacate his or their offices, the remaining directors of the company present at the aforesaid meeting or at any subsequent meeting, even although they do not constitute a quorum, may elect a director or directors nominated by the Government to fill the place or places of the director or directors so vacating his or their offices.
Up to that point it merely carries out the intent as stated by me in explaining the amendment in subclause (c). Then the new clause continues:
Moreover the Governor in Council may at any time appoint additional directors to the substituted board if considered expedient.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is
that for?


Arthur Meighen: Provision is made for a certain number of directors, and if later it should be decided to increase the number under this amendment, additional directors can be appointed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What contingency has the Government in mind there?


Arthur Meighen: The Government has not any contingency in mind, but the draughtsman, Mr. Tilley, in association with Mr. Newcombe, thought it would be unwise to restrict the Government in that regard; and, in fact, it was not known that they would be restricted until this was put in. It was not suggested by the Government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On the face of it, it looks as though it were intended to give the Government power to appoint new directors in case the existing directors should not act sufficiently in accord with the views of the Government.


Arthur Meighen: The Canadian National Railways Act gives the Government similar power. Stockholders must be able to appoint directors or there is no control at all. The Government is responsible for the character and capacity of the men running the road, and with that responsibility must go the power of removal. You cannot have responsibility without that authority.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As the Prime Minister has said, these amendments seem largely in the nature of improvements of legal phraseology, to enable the Government to tighten their control a little on the Grand Trunk. I do not think they affect the principle of the measure in any way, and therefore no useful purpose can be served in offering any objections.
Motion agreed to and Senate amendments concurred in.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT, 1918, AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Spinney for the second reading of Bill No. 122, to amend the Civil Service Act, 1918, was resumed.
Hon. A. K. MACLEAN (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that on Friday last I was out of the House when the motion for the second reading of this Bill was moved
by the Government. Had I been present I certainly would have protested against the procedure adopted from the beginning to the end. I think it is most peculiar. Nobody could help but be suspicious of the motive and purpose behind the Bill, particularly by reason of the manner in which it has been presented to the House. There has been an absolute absence of candour or frankness in the explanation upon the first reading of the Bill or upon the second reading. The purpose of the legislation has not been disclosed at all, in fact any explanation has been evaded, and apparently every step taken has been with the view of preventing the House gaining any knowledge of that purpose.
I do not say that I am right in that assertion, that will be for members of the Government to state themselves, but I do say that the procedure adopted in presenting such an important measure to the House is open to serious criticism indeed. In the first place, the Bill was introduced in blank when the first reading was moved. On Friday last, before the second reading, a committee was appointed without an opportunity being given by the House to hear from the Government as to the purpose and provisions of the measure or to express its opinion on the principle involved. In that respect the procedure has been most unusual. It might naturally have been expected that upon the second reading at least some explanation would have been forthcoming. I say that for the reason that the Bill affects fundamentally the main provisions of an Act which, after great deliberation Parliament adopted three years ago. That Act is difficult to understand at best, and most .members, I fancy, have never given to it that direct study which would enable them to understand the importance of	its main
provisions, to say nothing of its many subsidiary clauses. I would not object to a Bill being sent to a committee without a full discussion of its principal provisions, if the legislation being amended were well known to the House and if the amendments were of a trivial or unsubstantial character. But the Bill before us for consideration is extremely important. It is a reversal of every principle of importance contained in the Civil Service Act of 1918, it is a reversal of public policy as declared in the elections of 1917, and it is not a Bill that the Government should have contemplated sending to a committee without full and ample discussion in the House. It is a Bill that cannot be properly,



effectively and intelligently considered by any committee until the House has decided whether as a matter of principle they intend to revert to the patronage system as it prevailed prior to 1918. And that is the purpose of this Bill-a clear-cut, definite reversion to the practice of political patronage as it prevailed before 1918, with a few trivial and perhaps unimportant exceptions-exceptions which, I think, if the Bill is accepted by the House, might as well go along with the other portions of the Act that are being amended. Therefore I say that this measure should be discussed by the House; that it should not be sent to a committee before the principle involved is adopted by the House, and that the motion setting up this committee should be rescinded if only as a matter of respect to members of the House.
Now, when the Bill was introduced the other day the hon. member for Yarmouth (Mr. Spinney), in presenting it, said:
If the introduction of the present measure, which proposes to amend the Civil Service Act of 1918, leaves the impression on the mind of any hon. member that the Government is receding from the main principles of that statute, namely, the abolition of patronage, he may at once dismiss that thought.
Now, with all due respect to my hon. friend I do say that that was hardly a fair description of the measure, because it is, without a scintilla of a doubt, a reversion to the patronage system as it prevailed prior to 1918. There are some exceptions, I admit, but they are unimportant, and, as I have already said, if we adopt this measure we might as well let these exceptions go with the other provisions of the Civil Service Act of 1918 which are being amended.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) sought to hasten the transmission of this Bill from the House to the committee upon the ground that the principle of the Bill had already been discussed upon a resolution of the member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes). Well, I do submit to my right hon. friend that that was hardly good ground for hastening the measure from the House to the committee. A discussion upon a resolution asserting abstract principles can hardly be regarded as taking the place of a discussion of the principles involved in definite legislation. On the resolution of the hon. member for Victoria many matters were discussed. While I was not present on the occasion of the debate upon that resolution, upon reading some few days later the speeches that were delivered, I was gratified to 
learn that the principle of the Civil Service Act had been supported by practically every hon. gentleman who spoke, no matter on which side of the House he sat. I was very much pleased at that time to read the remarks of the right hon; Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) whom I had always known to be a sincere and zealous supporter of the principles embodied in the Civil Service Act. He stated, as reported on page 844 of unrevised Hansard of March 11, 1921:
Now, in so far as there may be betterments in administration, I am open to the adoption of those betterments, but I am absolutely against putting patronage back either here or in the Outside Service, except under very exceptional circumstances.
Later on he said:
I do not want to go back to the old system of patronage. I felt my heart throb in response to sentiments expressed by the member for Ottawa (Mr. Chabot), when he faintly adumbrated the joy and the pleasure of living in Ottawa as a public man in these days as compared with the times-


Mr. SPEAKER:: I regret to have to call the hon. gentleman to order; I thought he was merely making a passing reference to a previous debate. But he is out of order on two grounds: first, because he is reverting to a previous debate of this session; second, because he is referring to a subject that has already been debated.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Well, Mr. Speaker, if you will just let me finish the sentence I was quoting-it is only a few words-then I shall accept your ruling:
-as compared with the times-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. gentleman has already got his head within the folds of the tent; I think he ought to be satisfied with that.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 
Mr. CURRIE:: What is the system of promotion?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am coming to that later. It robs the Civil Service Commission of its principal duties;-it is doubtful whether it would be worth while retaining the Commission to carry on the duties left it under the Act if amended as proposed. It would foe worth while, I think, for the House to consider briefly the history of the events leading up to this legislation and to study carefully the provisions of the Bill-because, having regard to the remarks made by hon. members of the Government in support of the measure, it is evident that they themselves are not fully conversant with it.
I should like to recall the attention of hon. gentlemen to the fact that in the election of 1917, the then Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), in his platform, stated to the public that he proposed the elimination of patronage in appointments to the public service. That pledge was deliberately and fully carried out. I admit that it was a tremendous step to take in legislation of this character, and that we proceeded further than any other country in the world had up to that time. I can quite
understand how this might affect political organizations, how it might directly and indirectly affect members of Parliament and prospective candidates to Parliament.
I can understand what confusion it might possibly create, and it created some. But, nevertheless, this Parliament, after due deliberation, with the support of hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House, unanimously accepted the Civil Service Act of 1918 introduced into Parliament in fulfilment of the pledge which the then Prime Minister made to the country in 1917. I think I may assert without much serious criticism that when a measure is placed on the statute books of this country in such circumstances, no Government should attempt to violate the main provisions or principles of that Bill without at least absolute and due frankness to the House, without affording to the House an opportunity of discussing the Bill, and certainly there should be no evidence of an attempt to send it by a subterranean passage to a committee of this House without the House knowing what the Bill contains.
Further, I think every hon. gentleman opposite, who is now a member of Government, heartily supported the Bill of 1918, and all the amendments that have been made to it since then. I remember reading reports of speeches delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) and his colleague the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) on their western tour during the autumn of 1920, and I observed that on frequent occasions they solicited support for the Government upon the fact that the Civil Service Act of 1918 had been introduced and adopted, and evidently they were both seeking support from the western provinces upon this measure. It seems strange that, within a few months after soliciting electoral support upon this measure, they should become responsible for the introduction into this House of an amending measure	,	which	practicallydestroys the most vital principles of the Civil Service Act. I wish to assert the following proposition	as a sound	principle,applicable to the	question,	and tothe parliamentary	system	obtaining
in this country. In 1917, an election took place upon several issues, including the Civil Service Act, under circumstances which I detailed a moment ago. That platform or public pledge was converted into definite legislation. There has been no election since that date, and, therefore, no attempt should be made to destroy that measure without an appeal to the

country. Some hon. gentlemen opposite express dissent; but if those gentlemen opposite were elected on that platform and supported and assented to the principle involved in that legislation, by what authority can they openly and brazenly revert to conditions which existed prior to the passage of the Civil Service Act of 1918? I deny that constitutional authority rests with the Government or with Parliament to make such important amendments to the Act prior to a dissolution of Parliament and an appeal to the people. Of course, Parliament is all-powerful; it may amend to-day anything to which it committed itself yesterday. Parliament undoubtedly has the pgwer; but considering all the circumstances in which this legislation was submitted to Parliament and to the country during the election preceding the constitution of this Parliament, I say that this Parliament cannot very well now go back on the principle of that legislation.
This Act has been in force for three years. I concede that it has not been a very popular measure with certain sections of our people. It is not popular, it is quite true, with many members of parliament. I do not question their right to that view or to opposition to the measure. I appreciate fully the basis and reasons for their opposition to the Act and their prejudice against it. The measure was not popular amongst certain civil servants and I think the Act was made unpopular with the public by the unjustifiable attitude of many sections of the Civil Service at one time or another since the introduction of the Act. There has been much confusion, of course, by reason of the enactment of such legislation. That was to he expected; it was unavoidable; you could not cast away the Civil Service Act of 1908 and insert in its place the present Act, with the very important and almost violent changes which it includes, without creating con- ' fusion. But the present law has been in force for three years; it is beginning to be understood; it is becoming popular with the masses of the people; it is becoming more acceptable to the Civil Service than ever it was; and as the days go by, it should become more acceptable to members of Parliament and they should be glad to have upon the statute books of this country legislation which would do away with the harrassing and disconcerting duties attaching to matters of patronage in connection with appointments to the public service.
If it were not for the Civil Service Act of 1918, the're would be thousands more
fMr. A.*K, Maclean.]
people in the public service than there are to-day. It is true there are ten or eleven thousand persons more in the public service than there were in 1914, but it is not difficult to understand the reasons for this increase. The Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, the Soldiers' Land Settlement, the Income Tax Branch of the Finance Department, the Pensions Board, the Record Office, the Air Board, and sections of the Militia Department, are all practically new departments; they are war departments; they are incidents of the war. Their growth and development and the employment of many persons within those different branches of the public service was not due to the Civil Service Act, but was, as I say, one of the incidents of the war. I fancy that if one were to go through the various departments with a view to ascertaining the number of persons within the service, he would learn that there are no more persons engaged in the public service to-day than there were in 1914, and I say that the tendency in the future will be to reduce the number. Why? Because there is no incentive to-day to create new positions, for the reason that no person seeking appointment and no person seeking the creation of a new position or office, knows who under the competitive system will obtain the appointment. Now if Parliament and the country are serious in wishing a reduction in the Civil Service Staff to proper proportions, they certainly should not desire a reversion to the provisions of the Civil Service Act of 1908 and its amendments. The Civil Service Commission and the Act deserve credit for some of the things that have taken place in connection with certain departments of government. Great improvements are to bo made, so far as the number of persons employed is concerned, in the Post Office Department and the Customs Department. I have not personally seen the report of the Commission to the Government, but public rumour would justify me in saying that several hundred persons are to be retired from these two departments, and I believe I am right in saying that this can be done without injustice to the departments and without in any way lessening their efficiency. This means a saving of money, and surely this is a time, with our mounting expenditure, with our taxation now already at the breaking point, when we should restrict public expenditure for all purposes, but particularly should we protest against the creation of unnecessary

public offices and the appointment of persons unnecessarily to public offices.


John Allister Currie: Are not these retirements from the Post Office and Customs Departments due to Griffenhagen's investigation, and not to the Civil Service Commission?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My hon.
friend and a great many other hon. gentlemen have repeatedly stated that Griffen-hagen and Associates and the Commission were one and the same body. Now, for the purpose of my hon. friend, this afternoon, he is willing that they be regarded as separate entities. Griffenhagen and Associates were the employees of the Civil Service Commission; they were employed by that body; the Civil Service Commission were authorized by statute to engage assistance. Griffenhagen and Associates were not employed by the Government, and the work performed by these gentlemen in connection with the reorganization of the Post Office and Customs Departments was practically the work of the commission. If we revert to the position suggested by this bill, it will be utterly impossible to reduce the Civil Service staff in any department. On the contrary, you will see the staffs in several branches of the service in Ottawa and outside, immediately begin to grow.
I should like to refer the House for a moment or two to the splendid work done by the Civil Service Commission in connection with the Printing Bureau. I have in my hand a report made to the Civil Service Commission by Mr. A. L. Lewis, who was one of the members of a committee of three practical publishers who were invited by the Civil Service Commission to make, in the first instance, a preliminarv survey of the organization of that department. The reorganization of that department, I take it for granted, is pretty well known to hon. gentlemen of the House. It was put into operation partially in 1919 and completely last year. Early this year Mr. Lewis and one of the other gentlemen who, with a third, composed the membership of that committee, made another survey of the Printing Bureau, just for the purpose of ascertaining what improvements had actually been made. I cannot very well read the whole of this report to the House, but I wish to read a short extract to give hon. gentlemen an idea of the practical value of the work done by the commission in the reorganization of the Printing Bureau, and the economies effected. Mr. Lewis states:
There has been effected a reduction in staff over all three branches, from 1,171 on June 1. 1919, to 749 on October 20, 1920-a reduction of 35 per cent.
Some of the heaviest reductions: in the Composition end from 368 to 180, or 50 per cent; Bindery from 281 to 159, or 42 per cent; Stationery and Distribution combined from 160 to 94 ; or 40 per cent; Proof Room from 65 to 26 or 60 per cent.
The pay roll covering Printing, Stationery and Distribution Branches for the present fiscal year should show a decrease of approximately 30 to 35 per cent, or in the aggregate from $425,000 to $475,000.
I shall not ask the House to listen to a further reading of the report.


Mr. MORPHY:: Who is Mr. Lewis, and
what connection did he have with the Civil Service Commission? Is not he to be given the credit?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: As I explained a few moments ago, Mr. Lewis was a member of the committee appointed, I think, by the Governor in Council to make a preliminary survey of the Printing Bureau, and to report showing if any practical reform was possible in that department, and if so, in what respects it could be reorganized.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: What was his business?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I stated before that he was a publisher or printer, and that the other members of the committee were also, I think, engaged in the same business. Mr. Slack, of the Montreal Gazette, now deceased, was also a member of that committee. They made a report which was submitted by the Government to the Civil Service Commission, requesting the commission to proceed with the re-organization of the department; and I do say-and perhaps this will be an answer to what is in my hon. friend's mind-* that the actual re-organization of the Printing Bureau could not have been carried out by Mr. Lewis and his colleagues because the work required men of special experience. I say that the employees of the Civil Service Commission who did the work are entitled to the credit. I admit that this committee, composed as it was of practical men, might very readily have perceived, as they did, the objections to the operations of the department, and suggest obvious reforms. That they did, and for it they are entitled to a great deal of credit.
Now, I venture the statement that if the Bill now before the House becomes law, that the economy of $450,000 effected in the Printing Bureau in the last fiscal year will be entirely lost, and we shall very quickly



REVISED EDITION. COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
revert to the condition of affairs when it will cost anywhere from half a million to a million dollars more to run that department than it does to-day. You cannot reorganize the public service, you cannot reduce the numbers therein, unless the whole force is entirely removed from political influence, and such is the great value of the Civil Service Act, because, the motive for the creation of new positions having been removed, positions will not be unnecessarily created.
I want to make this further point: we are embarking to-day upon the experiment of Government control and, practically, Government operation of railways, and when the Grand Trunk has been acquired, our railway system will probably involve a mileage of considerably over 20,000 miles. I think I can safely say to-day, to the credit of the Government and its immediate predecessors, that the railways, in so far as they were subject to the control of the Government, have been remarkably free from political influence. I have heard that statement questioned by some of my friends on this side of the House, but I do affirm, without any fear of successful contradiction, that the railways of this country have of late been remarkably free from political influence. Why? I say, Mr. Speaker, that this is due merely to the fact that the Civil Service Act of 1918 was passed and has since been in operation. The effect of that Act upon the public mind was such as to make it possible for the Government, or members of the Government, to permit the operation of our railways free from political influence and political patronage such as were known to exist in the years gone by. If that Act is destroyed, and if the Bill now before the House becomes law, then I declare that the railways of this country will become a machine of the political parties, in which case this country might as well get rid of the railway system which we own and control, and endeavour to make some disposition of it that might give it a show for its existence. Some hon. gentlemen may say that there is very little connection between the fact that the Civil Service Act is-in force,-and that therefore appointments and promotions are free from Government control,-and the operations of the railways, which do not come under the Act. But hon. gentlemen know the psychology of the public mind as well as I do, and they will readily perceive how easy it is to secure public approval of the operation of the railways without political 
influence, when you have the great body of civil servants of the country under the Civil Service Commission and altogether free from any political influence or control.
There is another reason, I think, why the Civil Service Act should be allowed to stand as it is,- for the present at least, and why this Bill should not pass. I refer to the matter of preferential treatment given to returned men in appointments to the public service. Hon. gentlemen will remember that back in 1916 an Order in Council was passed making all appointments. to the Civil Service, whether in the inside or the outside service, subject to a certain qualification, in regard to returned men. I think I had better read the Order in Council:
In making all appointments to the Civil Service, whether in the inside or in the outside service, preference shall be given to those candidates who have served overseas in His Majesty's Forces during the present war, and who have been honourably discharged therefrom, especially to those who, through disability occasioned by active military service, are unable to fulfil their previous occupations.
In 1918, a further -Order in Council was passed, as follows:
In all competitive examinations held under the Civil Service Amendment Act, 1908, persons who have been on active service overseas in the military or naval forces of His Majesty, or of any of the Allies of His Majesty, who have left such service with an honourable record or who have been honourably discharged and who obtain sufficient marks to pass such examinations, shall, irrespective of the marks they have obtained, be placed in the order of merit, on the list of successful candidates, above all other candidates.
Such was the position of affairs in relation to preferential treatment of returned men in appointments to the public service in February, 1918. Naturally, these provisions, as contained in the Orders in Council, would be incorporated in the legislation following, namely, the Civil Service Act of 1918, and I shall read section 39 (a) of the Act, which is as follows:
Provided, however, that in all examinations for entrance into the Civil Service, persons who have been on active service overseas on the military or naval forces of His Majesty, or of any of the Allies of His Majesty, during the present war; who have left such service with honourable record, or who have been honourably discharged; or, when any persons who have served as aforesaid have died owing to service overseas, the widows of such persons, and who in either case obtain sufficient marks to pass such examinations, shall, irrespective of the marks they have obtained, be placed in the order of merit, on the list of successful candidates, above all other candidates.
I submit that this provision of the Civil Service Act in respect of preferential treat-

ment for returned men, can operate only under that Act as it stands to-day. The Bill before the House repeals it, I would say, as regards fifty or sixty per cent of the total service. It is actually impossible to carry that section into effect if the Bill before the House becomes law. Further, no means are provided in the Bill for giving preference to returned men, and I doubt whether means can be so provided, for the reason that appointment upon competition is very largely done away with by the Bill, as is also promotion upon the competitive basis. I do not see how the Bill could be amended to safeguard that provision as contained in an Order in Council passed in 1916, and further supported by an Order in Council passed in 1918, and later by the legislation-
John Allister Currie: Will the hon. gentleman permit me a question, because he seems to have a brief for the Civil Service Commission and of course he will have all these facts-


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, no.


John Allister Currie: -would he be kind enough to inform the House what percentage of the returned soldiers appointed have been appointed as permanent civil servants, as compared with the other appointments that have been made by the Civil Service Commission? That is the point at issue.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am sorry but I cannot answer my hon. friend's question. It is altogether too big an order for me to answer offhand and I would need to have access to the records of the Civil Service Commission to inform myself. But my hon. friend knows, just as well as I do, that thousands of returned men have been appointed to the public service.


John Allister Currie: Nearly every one of them has been fired by the Civil Service Commission.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I say this
to my hon. friend, and I say it to the Government:	If they desire to restrict
the operation of that section in relation to the appointment of returned men to the public service, if they wish to withdraw the preference given returned men in whole or in part let it be said so; that may not have been the intention of the framers of the measure, but very largely it is the effect of it. Now, as I say, if it is desired to amend section 39 (a) of the Civil Service Act let the Bill make provision for it
17 9i
clearly so that we can understand the possible effect of the thing if it becomes law. I do not say that this section should always remain in the Civil Service Act. We may be approaching the time when it should be amended somewhat, there probably will come a time when it should be stricken out entirely from the Act; but it has been a provision of the Act highly regarded by the returned men, it has done a great deal towards the rehabilitation of many of them, and it should only be cut out, or amended, or restricted in any way, after due deliberation.


Mr. McGIBBON (Muskoka):: Will the hon. member tell us what percentage of the higher appointments, if any, have been given to returned soldiers?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I cannot
answer that question either.


Peter McGibbon: Practically none.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I should say a great number of men have been appointed to the higher positions but exactly what number, of course, I cannot say.
Now, further, Mr. Speaker, I want the House to understand this point. It may be that the Civil Service Act of 1918 proceeded too far, I can quite understand any hon. gentleman raising that point, but when it is raised I should like the privilege of debating it, I should like to see it come before the House in a clear-cut fashion so that we may be faced with a definite issue. It may be that the rural postmasters should be excluded from the operation of the Act; it may be that manual labour should be excluded from the operation of the Act; but there is no necessity of introducing a Bill for that purpose. If hon. gentlemen will turn to clause 38 (a) they will find a section framed with that express design; I am in a position to speak with some authority upon this point. That section is as follows:
-the provisions of this Act shall not apply to positions in connection with the Government railways or any railway owned or controlled by His Majesty, or to any position on any ship of His Majesty until the Governor in Council
otherwise directs	in any case where
the Commission decides that it is not practicable to apply this Act to any position or positions, the Commission, with the approval of the Governor in Council, may make such regulations as are deemed advisable-
Now, Mr. Speaker, when the Act was drafted it was foreseen that it might be difficult or impracticable to carry out certain of its provisions, and that it might

some time in the future be desirable to remove certain classes of public servants from its operation, and, that was the purpose of that section. For some reason or other which I have never been able to understand, the Civil Service Commission undertook to make appointments to His Majesty's Ships-I do not mean the naval ships but the ships controlled by the Marine Department. For a certain time they made appointments to this part of the public service; I do not know why they did, or where they got their authority for it, but at least they did it. Last July they submitted to the Governor in Council a recommendation to withdraw this class from the operations of the Civil Service Act and they were withdrawn. Now I am sure if the Government feel that rural postmasters and manual labourers, for example, should be withdrawn from the operations of the Act, and they ask the Civil Service Commission to meet them face to face to discuss the suitability and practicability of such a suggestion, the commission would meet them in a fair spirit and I have no doubt they would reach a right conclusion upon it. I do not hesitate to say that very many strong reasons could be given for the elimination of these two classes from the operation of the Act, although I do not say that I would so change the law at the present momment. And my reasons for not doing so now would be these. In the first place the Civil Service Commission affords the best safeguard that the returned men will be given the preferential treatment required by the Act and which I think represented the judgment of Parliament and the wishes of the country.


John Allister Currie: Will the hon. member
show me where, in any single instance, any body representative of the returned soldiers has passed a resolution endorsing the Civil Service Commission?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The returned men will have an opportunity of making their views known to Parliament and the country. I cannot speak for them; but I say I would object to making that change at the moment for two reasons: First, the Civil Service Commission affords a safer assurance for preferential treatment in the appointment of returned men to the public service than would be afforded if the appointments were made by the Governor in Council. For the wellbeing, comfort and happiness of my 'hon.

friends opposite who are members of the Government I would like to see the Act remain as it is. In these difficult and trying days when there is so much unemployment, is not the public treasury better safeguarded by the intervention of the Civil Service Commission in the appointment of manual labourers, than if that duty were thrown upon the departments of government who inevitably would be influenced-I know I would be myself and I believe they would be-by demands from constituents for employment of one kind and another? And, Mr. Speaker, the House knows just as well as I do that the creation of public positions, merely for the purpose of affording employment, will never solve the difficulties which are presenting themselves to us today. Therefore let me make this suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that if the Government really desire to withdraw certain classes from the operation of the Act, let them invoke section'38 of that Act; let them request a conference with the Civil Service Commission. I am sure they will be met in the proper spirit and that both parties will endeavour to do what is right in the circumstances.
Now, I purpose to briefly go over some of the provisions of the Bill. It is for me at least a difficult measure to understand, and I am not clear what the draftsman intended when drafting the Bill. I would ask hon. gentlemen to accompany me as I go over the several clauses, which are few in number. Subsection 1 of section 1 states that the Civil Service Act:
-in respect to organization and changes in organization, changes in classification, appointment, transfer, promotion, salaries and increases of salaries-
Shall not include:
Manual labourers. . . . post masters. . . . professional, scientific and technical officers.
I desire to add another word to what I have already said in respect to manual labourers, and that is that the lexicographer will have to conjure up a new definition of the term "manual labourer" if they would include all who would be appointed to the public service under subclause (a), if it became law in its present form. Manual labourers to-day are, after all, controlled by the Government or the departmental heads, and there is really no purpose to be served by the amendment. Casual labourers employed for less than thirty days are selected by the heads of departments without regard to the Civil Service Commission. If em-

ployed for more than thirty days those heads of departments must submit a list of the same to the Civil Service Commission, accompanied by a certificate which reads as follows-this is the form used in the Public Works department:
I certify that the employment of the above person is necessary for the efficient carrying on of the work of the department. The selection has been made without reference to personal or political consideration and strictly on the merit principle, as between persons applying or available for such positions. The appointee has satisfied me as to his qualifications. The appointee is suitable as to age, character and habits. The salary is fair and reasonable and does not exceed the rates approved by the Department or prescribed by the Civil Service Commission. The above-named civilian was employed only after efforts were made to obtain the services of a returned soldier and none were found to be available.
In Ottawa the Civil Service Commission have an employment bureau, and heads of departments requiring any short-time employees or manual labourers go to that bureau, where they are furnished with a list of those available. That list is practically given to the Civil Service Commission by the Great War Veterans' Association. If manual labourers are required outside of Ottawa the practice is to use the employment bureaus established under legislation of 1918 or 1919 and directed by the Minister of Labour. There the Great War Veterans' Association also list those of their men requiring employment. Those bureaus are co-operating with the Civil Service Commission and departmental heads, and so far as manual labourers are concerned the situation is very satisfactory; nobody is complaining, the returned men are protected according to the spirit of the Act, there is no loading of the Civil Service because of the watchfulness of the Civil Service Commission, and the departmental heads do not want to go back to the old conditions.
Subsection 1 also refers to postmasters. I think if ever the time arrives when certain of these positions should be excluded from the operation of the Act, the exclusion should not be so wide as is indicated in this section. I think it would be quite sufficient if it were merely extended to appointments to rural post offices; and, of course, I am not admitting that even that should be done.
Subsection (c), however is the very objectionable portion of the proposed enactment. It covers:
Professional, scientific and technical officers employed for the performance of duties as such.
Proceeding with subsection 2 it will be found that it provides that these three classes shall thereafter:
-be appointed, promoted, transferred and otherwise regulated-
As they were before the passage of the Act in 1918. Now, just imagine what would come within the classes of "professional, scientific and technical officers." I fancy it would include one-half of the Civil Service in Ottawa. All lawyers, doctors, engineers, architects, draughtsmen, actuaries, accountants; technical men of the Mining Department would come within its scope; also a great portion of the staff of the Department of the Interior-all within the Reclamation Service, the Natural Resources Branch, the Parks Branch, the Water Powers Branch, the Topographical, Geodetic and other branches of that department; technical men in the Marine Department; technical men in the Naval Department; all the Air Service; a large proportion of the Militia Department, and a great portion of the Finance Department as constituted at present.
We had experience of the equivalent of this in the Act of 1908, where under section 21 it was provided:
If the deputy head reports that the knowledge and ability requisite for the position are wholly or in part professional, technical or otherwise peculiar, the Governor in Council, upon the recommendation of the head of the department based on the report in writing of the deputy head, may appoint a person to the position without competitive examination.
Large numbers improperly got into the service through that clause, and one can readily see how it could be greatly abused. That was our experience. But taking this sub.-C section 1 literally, which provides that all professional, scientific and technical officers in the Inside and Outside Services are to be employed by the Governor in Council, nothing would be left but practically the clerical and stenographic services. Now under subsection 2 of section 1 the salaries of these persons are to be fixed by the Governor in Council making the appointment, which doubtless will be out of alignment with the remuneration to that part of the Civil Service which remains under the operation of the Civil Service Act. The result would be great variations in remuneration and consequent discontent in the Civil Service; there would really he a recurrence of the position which we sought to avoid in the Civil Service Act of 1918, that is, of paying different salaries to different persons for doing the same class of work.


John Allister Currie: Mr. Speaker, I do not
wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman but I do not think it is customary in this House to go into an analysis of a Bill on its second reading.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am not
going into a very extended analysis; I am just touching upon the borders and edges of the Bill.


John Allister Currie: I ask for a ruling on that point.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The point
of order submitted by the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Currie) is that it is not customary for an hon gentleman to go into an analysis of a Bill on the second reading. The point of order is well taken in so far as the custom of the House is to be observed. I must say, however, that I know of nothing in the rules of the House which precludes an hon. gentleman from referring to the principle embodied in the different clauses of a Bill on its second reading, provided this does not give rise to the questions and answers which are only in order when the House is in Committee of the Whole. I am therefore not disposed to rule that the hon. member (Mr. Maclean) has yet transgressed the rules.


John Allister Currie: Well, Mr. Speaker, I
quite agree with your ruling, but I wish to point out that the manner in which the hon. gentleman is making his speech precludes the Government from answering him in a discussion of the Bill clause by clause. I call his attention to the matter so that he may limit his speech to the customary speech on the second reading.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am very
grateful to my hon. friend for his suggestion, and if I observe a tendency on my part to stray away from the rules I shall remember his admonition. But up to the moment I have been endeavouring to attack the principle of the measure, and if I illustrate my points once in a while by reference to particular sections I trust that my good friend will be generous enough to forgive such a simple and unimportant lapse.
Now, I would like to direct the attention of the House to the latter part of subsection 2 of section 1:
Provided that, except in the case of manual labourers, and professional, scientific and technical officers as above described, no person appointed shall be retained in employment-
And then it goes on to provide that a certificate of competency must be obtained from the Civil Service Commission. Now,
[Mr. A. K. Maolean.l
that section really means this: I will read it as it really-


John Allister Currie: I again call attention
to the fact that the hon. member is discussing in a specific clause.


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


John Allister Currie: I am perfectly in order.
I know the rules of the House; I have been here a little longer than the hon. gentleman.
I have time and again in this House been called to order for doing the very same thing. The hon. member knows that he is violating the rule.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My hon.
friend's experience has been different from mine, because I have never been called to order on this point, and I suppose it is because I have always observed the rule.
I am sorry that my hon. friend's experience has been otherwise.


Georges Henri Boivin: The custom of the House is well established, that an hon. member should not upon the second reading of a Bill attempt to discuss in detail its several clauses. It must, however, frequently occur that it is impossible to discuss the principle of a Bill without referring to the different principles involved in its different clauses. I hope that the hon. gentleman will not depart from the custom of the House by going into the intricate details of any particular clause. On the other hand it has been held many times that some license should be conceded to hon. members addressing the House and that they should not be precluded from referring to the different clauses of a Bill in so far as they may affect the principle of the Bill itself. This doctrine is laid down in May's Parliamentary Practice at pages 356 and 351


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your ruling in the matter. I assure you that I shall not . depart from the rule. If a contest develops between yourself and myself upon this matter, I think I shall have little difficulty in satisfying you that I am strictly adhering to the best parliamentary practice. I am open to the criticism of my hon. friend in not discussing the principle of the latter part of subsection 2 because I am not quite sure that I know what it means, and I doubt very much whether anybody on this earth does. If, therefore, I fail to interpret it properly,
I hope to be forgiven. Now, I was going to say that this clause as it stands means

this: that postmasters whose remuneration consists in whole or in part of a percentage of the receipts of the office, can only hold office for six months without getting a certificate from the Civil Service Commission. Surely that principle is absurd; it does not prevail now. The Civil Service Commission appoint rural postmasters on the recommendation of the provincial post office inspectors, but this section will compel those postmasters to satisfy the Civil Service Commission within six months after their appointment that they are competent.


Mr. TWEEDIE:: That is not the meaning of the clause; that class of men are specially excepted. Others may be temporarily appointed for a period of six months, but these are expressly excepted.
Mr.	MACLEAN	(Halifax):	My	hon.
friend will understand it readily, if he has had an opportunity of reading the Bill.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: I read it just now.
Mr.	MACLEAN	(Halifax) :	My	hon.friend	will have to	read it two	or threetimes	in order to understand	it.	In
saying that I am not reflecting upon the hon. gentleman; I had to read it a dozen times. The provision reads:
Provided that, except in the case of manual labourers, and professional, scientific and technical officers as above described, no person shall be appointed-


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: That is, no person except those covered by the three classes referred to shall be appointed.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, the
classes "above described" consist of three classes; the clause I am reading excludes two, and two subtracted from three leaves one, unless there has been some great change in mathematical axioms.


John Allister Currie: I submit that that is not involved in the principle of the Bill.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Well now, if my hon. friend will permit me to proceed I shall soon be through.


John Allister Currie: Well, get down to business.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am getting down to business; I am there. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that portion of subsection 2 of section 1 means that the Civil Service Commission in some way or other would have to satisfy themselves, that all postmasters except city postmasters, were qualified before issuing a
certificate of competency. That is what the Bill says; perhaps it is not what it was intended to mean.


John Allister Currie: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman a question there. When has it been the case that a country postmaster has not had to submit to an examination by an inspector to show that he was qualified?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: At present no certificates are issued by the Civil Service Commission to rural postmasters. Their appointment is recommended by the provincial post office inspectors and if the recommendation is accepted by the Civil Service Commission the appointment is made. But this section proceeds further.


John Allister Currie: Is it not a fact that the post office inspector acts for the Civil Service Commission and gives this examination to country postmasters?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, there
is no examination.


John Allister Currie: It is a fact that he is
the man who recommends the appointment of a country postmaster.


Mr. MURPHY:: Who is that?


John Allister Currie: The post office inspector.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not
think there is such a thing as an examination for appointments to rural postmasterships. There may be as regards postmasterships in towns or incorporated villages.
Another very objectionable feature in this bill is that it takes away the power of promotion from the Civil Service Commission and places it in the hands of the Governor in Council.' If I recollect aright, the present provision was clearly desired and demanded by Parliament. If there is anything in the Civil Service Act that should be perpetuated, it is that promotion should be by competition and merit, and should be removed as far as possible from political influences.


Peter McGibbon: Would
the hon. gentleman substitute promotion for the recommendation of the head of the department?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I certainly would. I have no faith whatever in recommendations of ministers or deputy heads in relation to the matter of promotion within the public service.


John Allister Currie: Does the hon. member
know that more than one-half of the promotion are made in that way?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not
think so.


John Allister Currie: We want to get this
Bill before a committee to find out whether that is the case or not.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Promotions that are made by the Civil Service Commission in many cases, I grant you, would have been made by the political head of the department. There has to be an examination. Notice of examination for the position affected is advertised in the particular branch of the department. Efficiency and seniority of the applicants is taken into consideration by the commission. The efficiency returns come to the commission from the deputy head of the department, and if the deptfty head of the department states that a certain applicant who is senior in rank, is qualified, has a good record, the chances are that he will get the position.


John Allister Currie: The "chances"-that is
a good way to put it-it is a poor chance.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is a good thing to have that power resting in the Civil Service Commission.


John Allister Currie: Is that as far as the
hon. gentleman would like to go, to say that "the chances are"? Should it not be that he must get the appointment?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: And he
does get it.	.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must remind the House that this is a second reading debate and, therefore, questions and comments by other hon. members are not in order.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Under the Bill which we are discussing the recommendation for promotion is made by the minister on a written report from the deputy.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: For merit.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: For merit,
and the recommendation will be only in respect of one person, it could not be for more; whereas under the statute as it now stands anybody in the particular branch or department can take the examination for promotion. Human nature is what it is and we all know, particularly those who have had political experience, that ministers and deputy heads in many cases will

not recognize merit and make promotions purely upon merit. Further, we all know that deputy heads are very impressionable to the representations of the political head of the department and the principle of the Act as it stands should not be departed from.
The other clauses of the Bill in respect to transfers and the establishment of new classes are absolutely unnecessary, and though they would not change the exact position of affairs at the present moment, still, it would be much preferable to allow those particular provisions which are proposed to be amended by these sub-clauses, to remain as they are.
If this Bill becomes law, the matter of establishment of rate of salaries would rest with the Governor in Council. The Government proposes by this Bill so to amend the Act that only as regards appointments which are clearly left with the commission, would salaries be fixed by the Civil Service Commission and as provided under the legislation passed in October, 1919. The result of the passage of the Bill will be that all manual labourers, postmasters as designated in the Bill, and all professional and technical men, inside and outside, are withdrawn from the operations of the Act. Practically the only persons who could be appointed to the public service at Ottawa by the Civil Service Commission would be the clerical staff. As regards the Outside Service, the only appointments to be left with the Civil Service Commission would be the customs and post office branches,-that is, such as do not come within the definition of scientific, professional and technical classes. This Bill, if it were ultimately enacted, destroys the fundamental principles of the Civil Service Act of 1918. It practically destroys the Civil Service Commission. I hope it will not become law; I hope Parliament will decline to accept it. This vis not the time to amend the Act in this way, and if it is to be so amended, that might very well be done later when we have a little further experience with the Act.


John Allister Currie: After the next election.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am not now interested in the next election. In the interest of the country and without detriment or injury to any political party now or in the immediate future, the Act might well be left as it now is until we have further experience with its operations. Therefore I move, seconded by Mr. Reid (Mackenzie) :

That the word "now" be left out, and that the words "this day six months" be added at the end of the question.
Right Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister
of Justice) : Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat surprised to hear the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) open his observations by complaining of a lack of candour and frankness in the manner in which this Bill was laid before the House. It seems to me that to whatever criticism either the form in which the action was taken or the substance which it was intended to lay before the House, may be open, certainly the manner of laying it before the House is not open to the reproach addressed to it by the hon. member. He has chosen to ignore entirely the explanation that accompanied the introduction of this Bill-it was, however, sufficiently clear-and he has attached himself to a minute discussion of the terms of the Bill as it is now before the House. And this in face of the clear and unmistakable declaration of the hon. minister who introduced this Bill that he laid all its provisions before the House as tentative, with a view to the entire measure going to a committee of this House in order that that committee might consider it, and might come to such conclusions as they would be advised were proper conclusions upon the whole subject of the desirability of a modification of the existing Civil Service Act, and if they reached the conclusion that modification was desirable, then, what particular modifications were required. It was pointed out that the particular list of officers referred to there was not in-, serted as being anything more than by way of example, that it was not intended to send this Bill to the .committee with the Government proposing that those particular classes should be the classes, if any, to be exempted from the operation of the Civil Service Act. Nor, in like manner, was it intended to put before the committee as the Government's proposals, which the Government intended to insist upon, the other particular proposals contained in the Bill.
There is behind the introduction of this measure-I am only repeating what has been said already-no purpose to depart from the fundamental principle that inspired the enactment of the Civil Service Act as it stands. That fundamental principle was that such a method of appointment of public employees should be found as would at the same time be most conducive to the efficient carrying on of the business of Government, and consistently
with that, as would assure, as far as that was possible, that in the making of selections of persons to fill positions and carry out the duties I have referred to, there should be the minimum influence of any consideration other than the fitness of the person concerned.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: May I ask if the Civil Service Commission has asked for this legislation, and if not, if it has been asked for by anybody?


Mr. DOHERTY:: The Civil Service Commission have not asked for these amendments.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They are opposing
them.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In some respects, I believe it would be fair to say that they were opposing them. I would judge by what I have seen of newspaper utterances that the Civil Service Commission take the position, which, after following the hon. member (Mr. Maclean, Halifax), seems also to be his position, and that is that whatever complaint may be made, whatever suggestion of possible improvements may be made, the Civil Service Act stands there like the Ark of the Covenant upon which no man especially no member of Parliament, and least of all, the Parliament of Canada, must lay an unholy hand. I do not think that is any unfair description of the position taken by the Civil Service Commission.
If I might digress for a moment I will take up at this stage a point of the hon. member for Halifax, because these observations seem to make it appropriate. The hon. member practically admits that with regard to the suggestion as to rural postmasters and manual labourers their appointment ought to be taken out of the hands of the commission. He admits that there is a very strong case for taking them out, but his position is that the Civil Service Commission could take them out if they wanted to-notwithstanding the fact that for three years they have not wanted to, and that there is no indication in any of the public utterances at all events of some of its members that the commission would give one moment's consideration to taking them out. The hon. member tells this House that because there is power for the commission to decide that matter, it must not be free for this House to consider it or even to think about it-because, Mr. Speaker, it must be borne in mind that the legislation as it is now before the House, with the explanation that accompanied its

introduction proposes in substance, that this House should sit down, in the first place in its committee, and then by itself upon the report of that committee, and make a study of the Civil Service Act, to see whether or not that Act has attained those two purposes which I pointed out at the outset as being the purposes for which it was enacted. Now, however perfect in the opinion of its authors that legislation may have been when enacted, and however perfect it may be found to be upon examination at the present time, surely there cannot be reasonable objection to its being carefully examined. I think the hon. gentleman himself would admit that, whether rightly or wrongly, there has grown up in the minds of a very large proportion of the public of this country

we had evidence in a recent debate in this House that there has grown up in the minds of a large proportion of the members of this House, the representatives of the people of this country, members sitting on both sides of the House, members occupying leading positions on the opposite side as well as upon this, a very strong impression that the authors of the Civil Service Act (we have all got our responsibility, I am not repudiating it) had overshot the mark. That belief naturally generates a discontent upon the part of those who believe that the public interest is injuriously affected by that overshooting of the mark, and also upon the part of those who believe that it may work injustice to themselves. Now, of course, the first consideration is the great consideration. We must not, in dealing with questions of Civil Service, run away with the idea that the occupancy of positions in the Civil Service is a competition between individuals to get a job, and that the one great consideration is to see that there shall be absolute and minute carefulness in the weighing, even to a grain, of one individual as against another. I would be the last to deprecate the doing of fair justice as between individuals, but that is not the great purpose of Civil Service legislation. Its great purpose is to assure efficiency in the public service. Now, it has been put forward very strongly from different sources, and men of experience in the public business of this country, men competent to judge, men long years removed from any political action, men above the suspicion of using their positions to favour individual friends, have expressed in strong and clear terms the opinion, that the public service of Canada, the business of this Government, and

therefore the business of the people of the country, was suffering by reason of the enforcement of certain provisions of the Civil Service Act. I am not here to say that that opinion is well founded; I merely say that it exists-and I may add that that opinion operates to create a very strong pulblic sentiment throughout the country adverse to the particular Civil Service Act that is now in force and operation. What is proposed to be done in that existing condition of affairs? It is proposed to ask the House to sit down and study the question to see whether the objection to the Civil Service Act is, or is not well founded. Surely the hon.- gentleman, who is so strong an advocate of the present law, should welcome an opportunity of addressing such eloquent pleas as he has offered in defence of it to a body that would be appointed for the purpose of hearing both sides of the question, a body that will have authority to go into the facts, and ohe that will not be, as we are, powerless in the face of contradictory statements of fact, -in short, a body that will be able fully to verify all the facts and finally reach a conclusion based upon those facts; and submit such a law as may commend itself to their judgment. When that is done this House will be in a position to take the report that is submitted to it, with the evidence that will have been gathered, and then decide as to who is right and who is wrong in reference to these divergent views concerning the operation of the Civil Service Act. If the hon. gentleman's faith in the Act is justified, why does he not look forward with confidence to the vindication of that faith by this method? I think he will admit that, if his view be right, an immense advantage will be gained if, by the report of the committee and the subsequent action of the House, there is brought home clearly to the people of the country, to those who believe that the Act is not operating satisfactorily as well as to those who are convinced that it is, the conviction that the Civil Service Act is all that he claims for it. On the other hand,-because, after all, I am satisfied that the hon. gentleman does not assume the impossibility of his being mistaken-if the result of careful examination of the whole question establishes that he is mistaken, and that there is room for improvement in the existing law, improvement that will not abrogate the fundamental principle of the law, but will furnish machinery that will operate more smoothly and more efficaciously so as to enable the wheels of

the Government business to run as they ought to run, then I think it will be conceded that it is only proper to have this matter thoroughly investigated. That is the question that is put before the House to-day with the perfect frankness and candour that characterized the hon. member for Yarmouth (Mr. Spinney) in introducing this measure on behalf of the Government.
Now, I realize that the form adopted to arrive at this result may, from the point of view of strict regularity, be a proper subject, perhaps, for justifiable criticism. The action taken might have been taken, certainly, and perhaps better taken, by a simple resolution looking to the appointment of a committee of the House to go into the whole question and report a Bill if that committee thought proper to do so. The only reason why the House finds itself face to face with this tentative Bill is that it was considered to embody the more important objections that have been raised against the operation of the Civil Service Act as it stands. Those important objections having been raised, it was thought that if the matter came to the committee in the shape of a Bill which, upon its face, would propose to deal with those objections in the manner set forth in this Bill, it would bring the whole subject before the committee in a more concrete form and would serve to call to their attention in a specific way the principal suggestions made for modification, looking, of course, to improvement in the law. It was felt that the Bill would provide the committee with a starting point in their operations, putting before them in a concise form the principal questions that have arisen in the public mind as well as in the minds of members of this House with regard to the operation of the Civil Service Act. As has been said and repeated, certainly with perfect frankness, there has been, and is, no intention on the part of the Government to put these particular provisions forward as a policy upon which they have decided; and with perfect candour I admit that the form in which this matter is brought forward may perhaps be open, as I have suggested, to justified criticism. But surely the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) and other hon. members do not desire to deal with a subject of this kind as a pure question of formality. Surely we all want to sit down and take up this grave question seriously and deal with it as practical men. For myself, I am not here to express any opinion in advance as to what modifications if any, should be made in the present Civil Service Act. But certainly no one could listen to the discussion that took place in this House the other day without at least recognizing that there arose a question, with which we were all face to face, as to whether or not, in the adoption of the Act which we now have upon the statute book, Parliament had not, to use the expression of certain hon. members on the other side, overshot the mark. After all, I think I may fairly say that the sole principle underlying the whole speech of the hon. member for Halifax is that this particular Act is as irrevocable as the laws of the Medes and Persians,-that not only it is susceptible of no change, but that ic is so sacrosanct that Parliament must not even consider for a moment whether or not it is properly open to improvement in the public interest. May I be pardoned if I say that the hon. member (Mr. Maclean), could, with better advantage have reserved the very earnest arguments which he made in support of the Bill just as it stands, to be addressed to the committee, at the proper time and in the proper place, when the representations which he and any other hon. gentlemen who advocate the retention of the present Act in its entirety may desire to make, it will be open to them to make.
I have said that all of us have our share of responsibility for that legislation, and I have no desire to disclaim mine, but I think we might all of us wisely see-in the wide divergence, at all events, that has arisen in public opinion as to the wisdom of many of the provisions of that Bill-an admonition to its more immediate authors, as well as to the rest of us who took the responsibility of supporting it, that the Bill, at the time of its introducing and passing through the House, might have been the subject of more careful study and more profound consideration, and, perhaps, of a more thorough informing themselves on the part of those who had to deal with it as to the real facts and the real results to be expected from certain provisions.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: May I ask my right hon. friend a question: Does he seriously suggest to the House that this Bill, involving amendments which are vital to the Act of 1918, should be sent to a committee, without the House discussing the principle and deciding whether that course should be adopted? I was very clear to say that I, at least, would not have objected to this Bill going to a committee if the proposed amendments to the Act had not been

such a substantial character. Surely my right hon. friend will not argue here in the presence of intelligent men that this Bill should go to a committee in its present form.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The best evidence that I am not asking that the Bill should go to a committee without discussing it is that I am discussing it at the present time. I have not suggested that the Bill should go to a committee without discussion, I am endeavouring to discuss whether it should go to a committee.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have no desire to offend my right hon. friend. I understood him to say that he is not going to discuss the principle of the Bill, and I understood his remarks to be in criticism of myself because I object to the Bill going to a committee.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman is quite right. I do not know that I would qualify it as criticism but I was endeavouring to make a reply to his argument-and what is embodied1 in this amendment-that this Bill should not go to a committee. I was trying to demonstrate just why the Bill ought to go to a committee; I am not arguing that it should go without the discussion of the real principle involved. The hon. gentleman apparently desires to argue, in the face of what has been said and repeated, that this Bill is not put before the House as involving any other or greater principle than this-that the time has come when it behooves the House to sit down and look over its work of three years ago and endeavour to ascertain which of the very divergent views as to the satisfactoriness of that work is the well-founded view, with the purpose of taking action according to the decision that may be reached. That, as I understand it, is the real question of principle that is presently before the House. I have admitted that if more importance be attached to technical form, to printed words, than to the real substantial thing that is intended to be laid and is laid before the House, it may be technically argued that printed words, admittedly put forward as tentative, may lead to an inference as to the adoption of a principle which is perhaps one that this House would not be right in adopting. But I do not think that I can make more clear than I have endeavoured to make it that this Government is not asking the House to adopt such a principle as may be inferred from a literal adherence to the words that are in 
the sections of the Bill. Now, taking the view that I have taken, and which I ask the House to take, it becomes quite useless for me to follow the hon. gentleman through his somewhat prolonged arguments-I do not complain of that, however, because to defend the whole Civil Service Act would necessarily take a very prolonged discussion,-through his somewhat prolonged, I will even say, forcible, arguments, in support of the principle provisions as they now exist. Let me only repeat this once more: The purpose of the Bill is not to subvert the fundamental principles of the legislation which it is suggested may be susceptible of amendment. If there be anything in this Bill which is subversive of those fundamental principles I for one, and I am sure the Government, do not ask any committee, and do not ask the House, to adopt it. That is one of the things that the committee will consider. As I have said, the problem that goes to the committee is this: Is a modification of the existing Act both' possible and desirable which, while it will not be inconsistent with the fundamental principles which I have indicated as underlying the Act, will be more conducive to efficient administration of the public business and more conducive to prompt and proper selection of those who are to perform that public business? If any of these particular provisions goes too far in one direction or the other it will be for the committee in the first instance, and for this House in the last instance, to correct it.
Now the hon. gentleman made some reference to an endeavour to get at results through "subterranean passages." I trust he will reconsider that suggestion. I am at a loss to see what "subterranean passage" is suggested to anybody. I hope we will all keep to the upper air and at the same time avoid "getting up in the air," and be able quite sanely and on terra firma to deal with the problem which presents itself.
The hon. member seemed to devote himself with particular energy to the proposition that something in this measure involved a possible deprivation of the returned soldier of the right which he is entitled under the existing law. He seemed to think that for any purpose for which a competitive examination disappeared, with that disappearance at the same time went the possibility of preference being given to the returned soldier. I do not think the hon. gentleman was particularly fortunate in the special provision which he selected

as the particular object of attack. It is not the competitive feature of the present law that gives the preference to the returned soldier. On the contrary, in order that the returned soldier should have the preference it was, and is, absolutely necessary to insert a special provision to say that in these cases the competitive principle shall not apply, because though there be men who have surpassed the returned soldier on the competitive examination the returned soldier, having * gathered enough marks to enable him to qualify is to be entitled to the position. The danger to the returned soldier came from the competitive system, and that danger was removed as I have stated. Now the hon. gentleman argues that it will be impossible to provide that safeguard in a law which may possibly do away entirely with the competitive system in respect to certain positions. I am sure his anxiety is quite unnecessary. I venture to say that the claim of the returned soldier to a legitimate preference will be as safe in the hands of a committee of this House as it possibly can be in the hands of the Civil Service Commission. And let me point out to him that in regard to certain positions which this Bill is intended to cover, if it should pass there would be absolutely nothing impossible in providing adequate methods for the perfect recognition of the right of the returned soldier to preference in the filling of those positions. It is just as easy, if the appointment be in the hands of the minister or of the Governor in Council, to make provisions looking to the protection of the right of the returned soldier as it is under the present existing legislation. The section then referred to and which, as I pointed out, need not necessarily disappear under this Bill, is section 39a, dealing with the returned soldier. We had then a special insistence on the right of the Civil Service Commission to deal with these classes,-classes which, almost by the hon. gentleman's admission, ought to be taken out of the Civil Service Act. I have already dealt with that part of his contention.
Now, the hon. gentleman says that he objects to this Bill going through without privilege of debate. As far as the question now before us is concerned, he has had the fullest possible privilege of debating it. This committee will assure him an additional opportunity of debating upon the * merits the existing legislation and any suggestions that may be made to modify it, and he will have before the,committee,
or certainly upon any Bill which the committee may report to this House, the perfectly clear-cut issue which he desires.
The hon. gentleman has indulged in verbal criticisms of the Bill, telling us that the term "manual labourer" according to any dictionary would cover practically the whole Civil Service. There will be opportunity for verbal correction of that kind either in committee of the whole House or in the committee to which the Bill has been referred. All the apprehensions which arise in the mind of my hon. friend I think will vanish after a little reflection. With regard to manual labourers, the hon. gentleman tells us that this provision is not necessary because that is the way they are appointed now. Surely if that is so it is at least more honest to say to the world: Why, the way that it is being done shall be in accordance with the law. Can there be a better justification for the suggested modification?
The hon. gentleman has great apprehension as to the operation of the provisions dealing with promotion. I do not propose to discuss those provisions now. I do not suggest that they are perfect, and, as I have said, I am not putting them forward as the last word upon the subject. They are put forward in order that a question which has given rise to serious differences of opinion among competent and disinterested people may 'be thoroughly threshed out. I confess that personally I do not sympathize with the hon. gentleman's distrust of the deputy heads in this matter. I do not know if my personal experience is different from that of other ministers of this or previous Governments, but I have not found, in dealing with the deputy head with whom I am particularly concerned, that he was prepared to yield his opinion to mine upon any question where the performance of his duty was involved. I noted that the hon. gentleman when dwelling upon the danger of political influence entirely omitted from his reading of the clause, whether intentionally or not, the proviso that the recommendation of the deputy head and approval of the minister must be accompanied by certification of qualification from the Civil Service Commission itself.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It would
not amount to anything, because the Civil Service Commission could only deal with the one appointee recommended by the political head of the department.


Charles Joseph Doherty: What this committee
will have to consider, and the House

ultimately will have to deal with, is the question whether in the light of experience the principle of promotion, subject to examination by an outside body, works in the interests of a better administration of the public business. But when the hon. gentleman talks about political influence, he should remember that no man is to be appointed whom this disinterested body does not certify to be perfectly qualified. In view of that, what is the serious danger to be apprehended from the operation of political influence? So far as the Civil Service Commission can bring us any guarantee under any system, there would be a guarantee under this section that no man would hold office who was not perfectly qualified. So that under that system every appointment will be subject to the absolute veto of the Civil Service Commission. Now, that is no small restriction, for that power of veto is, after all, the last word. With his unbounded confidence in the commission, I think the hon. gentleman would find in that veto a very material guarantee of the protection of the public interest.
In resuming my seat, Mr. Speaker, let me repeat once more that the purpose of this Bill is not to subvert the fundamental principles of the Civil Service Act. The purpose is to study whether or not it is possible, consistently with those principles, to ameliorate, in the interests of public business, certain conditions in respect to the service as they presently exist and to provide a method which will act more promptly, more effectively and just as usefully in the public interest as does the present system, without presenting certain of the objections which have been made to the working of the present Act. There is on the part of persons who look at the matter disinterestedly, persons competent to judge, a very strong prejudice against the method of application of the principle that underlies that Act, which has generated a strong prejudice against the principle itself. We would like, if that be possible, to remove that prejudice, and the best way to remove preconceived and mistaken ideas on either one side or the other of this question is to have the question thoroughly threshed out in the presence and to the knowledge of the public of Canada by a body that shall have opportunity to hear, and whose duty it will be to hear, all that is to be said from one point of view or the other. Parliament' may then, in the light of the knowledge so obtained, determine what action, if any,

it ought to take, determine what modification the existing legislation is susceptible .of to the public advantage, and expressly what form any such modification ought to assume.


Mr. F. F. PARDEE (West Lambton) :: I think that no one on either side of the House can find very much fault with the Opposition for taking up the time that has been occupied in the discussion which has proceeded this afternoon on the second reading of this Bill. A very meagre programme was set forth by the hon. member who introduced the Bill (Mr. Spinney), who said:
In this Bill there are incorporated in italics some tentative restrictions which cannot he considered as final, hut rather on account of the Bill not 'being allowed to be presented in blank.
That is not a very considerable bill of fare; it is not very much of an indication of what the Government do or do not intend to do. The Government do not tell us why amendment of the Civil Service Act is desired; they do not tell us wherein the Act has failed; they do not tell us what amendments are deemed necessary. They simply say: You shall take this holus bolus; the matter will go to a committee,-in order, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) has just said, that the committee may suggest modifications. The Minister of Justice said also that the modifications suggested ,in sub-clause (a) of clause 1 were "only there as an example." Well, how far may it go? If the classes set out in section 1-manual labourers, postmasters, professional, scientific and technical officers-are only "examples," where, I ask in all fairness, will1 these amendments take us? To my mind there is no doubt about the answer to that question, in view of what we heard the other day in regard to the census enumerators. Talk about rending the veil of the ark of the covenant so far as the Civil Service Act is concerned-hon. gentlemen would leave it absolutely exposed, without a shred of covering. To my mind, Sir, there is only one conclusion that the House and the country can come * to, and that is that it is the intent of the Government slowly to strangle the Civil Service Act, in connection with which such promises were made prior to the last election, and to go back to the old system of patronage.
Sir, I supported most heartily the amendments made to the Civil Service Act made in 1918, because I believed that the Bill then introduced was in the interests

of the country. I believe that so far it has worked well, and 1 am sure that there is not one single member of the House who desires to go back to the old importunities of the patronage system. It was a ease of men here and men there until the stress of politics became so strong that appeals could not be withstood and positions were created in order to take care of influential party men. Are we to have a recurrence of that condition? Are we to go back to conditions as they prevailed prior to 1918? The provision in italics referred to by the hon. member for Yarmouth (Mr. Spinney) covers the following classes:
(a)	Manual labourers whatever may be the
character of the work upon which they are employed and whether they are paid by the hour, the day, the week, the month, the job, or the piece ;
(b)	Postmasters whose remuneration consists In whole or in part of a percentage on the receipts of the office.
(c)	Professional, scientific and technical officers employed for the performance of duties as such.
So far as the first two classes go, I am free to confess that I do not think the Civil Service Act has worked out well. I did not see at the time how it could possibly work out well, because these appointments must be made on the spot. But I would like to ask hon. gentlemen who are much more familiar with the meaning of the English language than I am-the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), for instance-what he would say to this: "professional, scientific and technical officers employed for the performance of duties as such." Why, Sir, if you go down the calendar with this list where do you stop? Who is nbt professional? Who is not a technical officer? As I understand it, any officer is a scientific officer who is applying his best energies and his best intellectual ability to bring about the best results from the work in hand. The one who does that, has attained some degree of scientific accomplishment. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen), astute lawyer that he is, would argue any judge and jury into acceptance of the principle that under subclause (c) of section 1 you could appoint any one on earth to anything at all. It is patent; it is self-evident. I say without fear of successful contradiction that if you take the classes mentioned in italics and follow that idea out to its logical end, so far as the Civil Service and the Civil Service Commission are concerned we are absolutely back to
where we were and the Civil Service Act might as well not have been passed.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the Civil Service Act has been only a short time in operation-a matter of three -years. Does the Government think it is fair that the Act should be looked upon as unworkable, looked upon as calling for such fundamental changes, after so short an experience? Surely three years is hardly sufficient to enable the various officers to get shaken down into their positions and to know just what or what not to do under various circumstances. No precedents can arise in the short space of three years. I say that the Civil Service Commission should be given a chance; they should be given a further opportunity to work out this Act. The Act should not be in effect repealed at this stage and another substituted in its stead.
It is proposed that the Bill shall be referred to a committee. That committee will be a partisan committee, the majority consisting of government members. Any recommendations or suggestions made by government members on that committee will ultimately be carried. And what will the Government do? The Government will simply hide behind the skirts of the committee and say: "the committee have found that this provision or that provision is not working properly and the committee have made this recommendation we feel, as we have appointed this committee and have provided for modification-as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) has remarked-"that we must carry out those recommendations." Therefore, any change which the Government desires to make will be made by that committee, and the Government will have an opportunity of hiding itself behind the skirts of that committee.
This Bill ought not to be proceeded with now for two reasons. With the exception of a very small percentage of the people, the country is absolutely satisfied that political patronage has been done away with. The country heaved a sigh of relief when it knew that appointments were not being made here, there and everywhere, a position sometimes being created for the purpose of giving it to a needy supporter of the Government. The people heaved a sigh of glad relief when this Act came into force; they are perfectly willing to stand by it; they want to see it tried out; they feel that in these times of extravagance, the Civil Service Commission is a bar as between them and the Government, and they

know that only those men who ought to be appointed will be appointed for positions that should be filled. For those reasons, I thoroughly and heartily support the amend-' ment of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean). This is not an opportune time for the enactment of such a Bill as this. - The people do not desire the proposed legislation, and I believe that if the real truth were to be spoken, there are not many members of the House who desire to see this Bill passed.
I will not go into the Bill clause by clause. I could not improve on the explanation given by the hon. member for Halifax. All that he has said is, in my opinion, absolutely and entirely right, and I, therefore, have much pleasure in supporting his amendment.


Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that any one has made a demand in this House that the motion which is at present before it-I do not mean the amendment-should be passed and that the matter should be sent to a committee which has been appointed, without an opportunity being given for discussion. I have not heard any one make that demand. It is open to question where the brunt of the discussion had better come, whether we should have it after we have the matter looked into by this committee and have its views sent back to the House, or whether we should take the discussion now and reduplicate it and more after the committee has made its investigations and has given back its report and its recommendations to the House. As a mere matter of business, probably we would get further ahead and accomplish the result in quicker time if, with the explanations that have been made, the committee should receive this Bill in its present form, a tentative matter all through, and should do its work upon it. In that way we shall have the benefit of the information received in the committee and the views as expressed by the committee. There is no disposition on the part of the Government, nor, I am sure, in the House, to send this matter direct to a committee without allowing members, if they so desire, to express opinions with regard to it.
As regards the whole question, there is one view which makes me favourable to the reference to a committee, and I will tell the House just what that is. The Civil Service Act has been in operation in its present form for some two years or more, and 
during that time it has operated, I am bound to say, under difficulties more than ordinary. It has been subject to misapprehensions and to prejudices and to lack of information more than would have ordinarily occurred in times which were less troublesome and less filled with labour and work by the House and by members of the House, than times of war. It must not be forgotten either that the Civil Service Commission had to do a very large and difficult work in the matter of classification of the Inside Service, and when afterwards the Outside Service was added, the commission did a still more extended work in classification and in appointments outside of Ottawa. No three men, however appointed, however diligent and however capable, could have undertaken and have progressed through that period of classification, with both of those branches of the Civil Service thrown upon them, and given complete satisfaction either outside or inside. But the fact that they had to do it, and under the somewhat troublous conditions under which it was performed, has, I think, made them subject to more criticism and opposition than they otherwise would have received. I have had a good deal to do with the commission itself and with those who have been watching and observing and helping to carry out the work of the Civil Service Commission as applied to the different departments, and I have very great sympathy with that commission, with all its three members, in the *work that has been placed before them and the difficulties with which they have had to labour. I never have wanted, nor do I at present want, nor am I at present in favour of having, the Civil Service Commission and the Civil Service law as it is to-day bowled out of existence in so far as its principles and work are concerned, without some more investigation than has been given to it already. With an adverse opinion in the Civil Service at first, which adverse opinion, I am bound to say, is at present very largely if not entirely overcome; with an adverse sentiment on the part of those who favoured and who had worked under the old system; with an adverse sentiment from certain methods employed and certain agents which it has used -a sentiment which has been pretty strongly expressed-in the interest of the working of the Civil Service Act itself and of the working of the Civil Service Commission, I believe it is better that an opportunity should be given for those who have misjudged the commission, for those who have lack of information-as most of

us have-for those who are opposed to particular instances about which they may or may not know the facts, to get all together before a small committee of both sides of this House, with the Civil Service Commission there as well, and get the information which is vital and true. What has happened this afternoon? One hon. member gets up and says: To my mind, so far as my information goes, there is not a returned soldier who has received one of the higher positions; maybe there is one, but not many, and I doubt if there is one. Another member says: I have not the information, but I think I am correct in my impression that several of them have been given high positions. So there is scarcely a thing that comes up on which there is not a lack of information on the part of the individual member or person. Now a Civil Service Commission, and the system itself, does best when it has the clearest foundation of information, and of approval upon the basis of that information, to go upon, and rather than have this opposition from lack of information continued, opposition from certain particular instances which may be explained, or because of some particular lines upon which the commission works and where a better method might be followed'-rather than have all this backwater, this continued and uniform opposition to the work of the commission, is it not better that we get together in a small committee of intelligent men from both sides of the House, and get down for a few days to looking into the exact facts and circumstances?-so that if our information has been wrong, if our impressions have been false and our prejudices unwarranted we may relax our opposition and say: Yes, we understand better now the workings of this commission, and consequently we will raise our hands for it rather than against it?
While I am in favour of the principle of doing away with political patronage- always have been, am still, always shall be-I am not so bigoted in the matter as to say that any certain incarnation of the principle of no patronage in the Civil Service Act is the final word which may be said on the subject and that no improvement of method is possible. So I am not at all averse to having the matter reviewed by members of Parliament, who certainly have a first and vital interest in it, and who also have the public service at heart. Whatever you may say when you want as a partisan to attack another partisan, I believe it is a fact that members of Parliament on both sides have the public interest as the first thing in their minds, though, of course, they may have different ideas as to how that may best be served. I believe, that sentiment being there, that it will be a good thing to put this matter before a committee; let all parties meet together. If we have had misinformation, if we have had prejudices, if we have had a lack of apprehension as to what was actually being done, we will have the benefit of finding out the facts, and our action will be different afterwards. When that committee finds and reports to the House, this House will take into consideration any points which may be brought to its attention as to deficiencies in the Act, as to what things might better be done in another way, as to certain employments that might very well be exempted from the Act entirely.
My hon. friend (Mr. Pardee) who spoke last said, very frankly, that with regard to two of these classes he was of opinion that they might better have never been undertaken by the Civil Service Commission, and he mentioned my own name in connection with the census enumerators. Now, if country postmasters and manual labourers, temporary and casual, might very well be exempted from the Act, what plea would my hon. friend put in for the census enumerators, some 10,000 or 12,000 of whom have to be selected for temporary employment of a month or even less, in every part of this Dominion from the Yukon down to Sydney, with the liability of a large percentage of them falling out at the very last moment and with no possible means in the hands of the Civil Service Commission to fill those vacancies which occur? With reference to the census enumerators, when the matter came up I talked the matter over with the Civil Service Cimmission, and said:	There is the census; there is what
we are to do; does the commission feel like taking that on? The commission, after they had thought it over, sent in their decision, that they would give that up as a part of the Civil Service work, and that they would confide it to the department itself. I believe there are some things in which that might be done to the advantage of the working of the system as a whole, but I would be very careful how far that went
My hon. friend (Mr. Pardee), and my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) say that with regard to scientific, technical and professional men you may so extend that as to eliminate from the Civil Service Act maybe three-fourths of the whole Civil Service. I do not believe you



[Stage Direction]
can do it. I do not believe that any Civil Service Act would be a decent Act if it was so framed that that could be done. I do not take the definition of my hon. friend's of a scientific man. If I understood him, you could include in his definition of scientific man every man who applied the best that was in him to get the best out of the work he was doing. I do not think that that definition would suit the thing at all. I do not think that is a definition which could be applied under that clause. But I do say that if you allow technical, scientific and professional men to be exempted from the Act under certain conditions, you will make easier and better and more efficient that part of Civil Service work which is, without doubt and honestly technical, professional or scientific. But in any Civil Service Act which included that as a portion of the Act it should be put in such a definite manner that it never could be abused in the way my hon. friend has suggested.
Therefore, in conclusion, I say that I am impelled to this action, not because I want to get rid of the Civil Service Act, not because I do not believe-I always have believed-in the principle of the elimi-ation of political party patronage from the Civil Service of the country, but because I believe under all the circumstances a review of the whole matter by a small committee of both sides would result in an actual and positive benefit to the working out of the Act. Afterwards, when what they give us as the result of their investigations comes here, the House can exercise, its own j udgment-and certainly the Government will exercise its own judgment-upon it.
Mr. McKENZIE:: Does not the minister think it would have been better to have had that investigation before the Bill was introduced? Is it not an unusual thing to introduce a Bill of this sort and then have the investigation afterwards?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: My hon. friend has heard what his lord and master, in a legal sense, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) has said with reference to that, and it is not necessary for me to make that argument as well.
At Six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish to say 
a few words in support of the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean). In doing so I might direct the attention of the House to the circumstance that possibly no hon. member in this House is as well qualified to speak on this measure and the significance of it as my hon. friend. He was the member of the Government who introduced the legislation embodied in the Civil Service Act of 1918, and, having been the one to introduce that legislation, he naturally is better informed than any other member can possibly be as to its importance and the significance of any amendment that may be offered. For that, amongst other reasons, I think the House may assume that every argument the hon. member has put forward is one to which it should listen with a great deal of attention. Indeed, I might say that every argument presented by the hon. member against the present Bill, with its proposed amendment, is practically the same argument which as a member of the Government he urged in support of the original Act in 1918.
The Act of 1918 was one which purported to extend the powers of the Civil Service Commission and to lessen the powers of the Governor in Council with respect to appointments, promotions, transfers, and matters of classification. The legislation which we have now before us in the form of a proposed amendment to the Act of 1918 is intended to lessen and restrict the powers of the Civil Service Commission and to increase the powers of the Governor in Council in all those particulars. If there are any gentlemen who should be careful in amendinents they propose to the Civil Service Act, in view of the professions which they have made throughout this country in regard to the part which the Government has played in Civil Service reform, they are the members of the present Administration. I shall not repeat to the House-the matter has been mentioned in a previous debate-the professions respecting Civil Service reform which were put forward in the Conservative Party platform of 1911 and advocated by the then leader of the Opposition, subsequently Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), and the gentlemen associated with him. One of the outstanding features of the so-called Halifax platform was the reform of the Civil Service which it was intended to introduce if the hon. gentleman came into power. In 1917, at another election, a great deal was said

about what should be accomplished in the way of Civil Service reform, and still more about what would be accomplished in view of the fact that the Government which was seeking power was a Union Government composed of members of both political parties. It was urged that, having in the Union members of both political parties, that the Union Government was in a position to do, in the matter of Civil Service reform, what it would be practically impossible for any strictly party government to do.
The Unionist administration was returned and a measure of Civil Service reform was introduced by the hon. member for Halifax, as a member of the ministry, and it received the support of all members of the Government. After the measure had met with this support, a great deal was said throughout the country, from one end of it to the other, as to the significance of what had been achieved. I shall not attempt to review the many assertions, made by members of the Government as to the measure of credit to which the Government was entitled in virtue of this reform, but I should like to refer to one or two speeches made within the last few months by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen), and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Calder), who accompanied him on a tour through Western Canada. Hon. members will recall that in the fall of last year the Prime Minister and the President of the Council addressed a large number of meetings in the western provinces. It would take too long to go through the different speeches delivered on that occasion; but, having looked over the press reports of some of them during the short recess between six o'clock and the present hour, I find that, in practically every meeting addressed by these hon. gentlemen, they took great credit to themselves for. being members of a government that had abolished party patronage in this country. They claimed that there was no longer such a thing as party patronage in Canada, and that as a consequence, we had now a measure of Civil Service reform which had completely changed the public service.
I have in my hand a report of a speech which was delivered at Winnipeg on October 25. It is an account of a meeting addressed by the President of the Privy Council in the course of that trip through the West; the Prime Minister was also present at the meeting. In the Winnipeg Free Press of the next day-October 26-
the President of the Council is reported as follows, under the caption "Party Patronage":
Tou ask what has been done. I would say that 99 per cent of party patronage is gone-There may be a shade of it to-day, but you will have to look mighty hard to find it. Prior to 1917 under both the Liberal and Conservative Governments, Ottawa was filled with patronage hunters all the time. They were hanging around the Parliament buildings day and night. No, they are not there now.
We also had to deal with the question of Civil Service, and again the Civil Service has been lifted out of politics. Now, I don't say that things are entirely altered in the Civil Service. In putting our new law into force there have been mistakes here and weaknesses there, but we have undertaken a great reform on behalf of the people of Canada, and I hope also this reform will stick and that we will never get back to the old order of things. Is that what the people want? Do you want us to go back to the old order of things?
That was the kind of profession with which my hon. friends opposite started their campaign of political meetings. I find that at meetings at Vancouver on October 29, and at New Westminister the same day, similar statements were made. For example, in a telegraphic despatch of the Canadian Press which appeared in most of the newspapers of October 30, the President of the Privy Council is reported as having said:
Party patronage was practically a thing of the past in Canada.
Then, again, at Lethbridge on November 20, in a special despatch to the Montreal Gazette giving an account of the meeting held in Lethbridge that day, the following appears:
Patronage was practically gone, said Mr. Calder, and he gave the Union Government credit for its extinction.
But the President of the Privy Council was not the only one who gave credit to the Union Government for the complete abolition of the patronage system. I have here an account of a meeting held at Medicine Hat on November 10. This report, which appeared in the Toronto Globe of November 11, and which is similar to reports in other Canadian papers, has the following from my right hon. friend the: Prime Minister:
Patronage in the Federal Service is gone. Down at Ottawa, and in Ontario, where they watch us more closely nothing has brought us more criticism than our course in this thing. There were more workers in the Government Service because Government activities had been greatly extended, but they were not party workers.
Now these are the professions which my right hon. friend and his colleague were

making through the West, with regard to Civil Service reform.


An Hon. MEMBER:: When was that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That was in November of last year, after my right hon. friend had become Prime Minister. He and his colleague were taking the credit for having abolished party patronage. Under these circumstances. I think the House was entitled to more accurate and definite explanation of the principle involved in the Bill which is now before us than the one which was presented by my hon. friend from Yarmouth (Mr. Spinney) who, as one of its members introduced the Bill on behalf of the Administration.
Reference has already been made to the manner in which the Bili was introduced. On its first reading, as has been pointed out by an hon. gentleman on this side, practically nothing was said as to what the Bill involved. All that my hon. friend from Yarmouth mentioned was that there were certain italics, or italicized words, in the Bill which was to be introduced, but that they were really to stand for nothing-they were put in as a kind of blank form and later on if a committee had occasion to consider them, the House would see their significance. Nothing, Mr. Speaker, was before us to denote what the Bill might contain when it was brought down, or what these italicized words might be. Now we discover the whole measure is to afford a return to party patronage. I think it was on Thursday of last week that the Bill was introduced, on Friday before the Bill had had its second reading, my hon. friend (Mr. Spinney) moved that it be sent to a select committee, a course of procedure to which you,
I think, Mr. Speaker, directed the attention of the House as being, to say the least, somewhat irregular. However, we were given at that time two positive assurances from the Ministry-one from the hon. gentleman who introduced the Bill, as to what purported to be its principle, and the other from the Prime Minister who also gave what from his point of view, was the principle or significance of the measure. Let me read to the House what was said by the hon. member for Yarmouth with respect to the principle of the Bill. My hon. friend said:
If the introduction of the present measure, which proposes to amend the Civil Service Act of 1918, leaves the impression on the mind of any hon. member that the House is receding from the main principles of that statute, namely the abolition of patronage, he may at once dismiss that thought.

There, Mr. Speaker, was a statement from the ministry that the Bill which is now before us was in principle in no way receding from the principle of the Civil Service Act of 1918. What was the principle of the Civil Service Act of 1918? It was to give to the Civil Service Commission certain powers with respect to appointments, promotions, transfers and classifications, which had therefore been exercised by the Governor in Council and which had been a matter of party-patronage. That was the principle of the Act of 1918. What is the principle of the present Bill? It is precisely the reverse. The principle oi this Bill is to take away from the Civi Service Commission certain powers whicl were given to it in 1918, and to transfei these particular powers-powers wit! respect to appointments-powers with respect to transfers, promotions and classifications-to the Governor in Council. 1 say, Mr. Speaker, that in the statement which I have just quoted the Government completely misled the House in regard to the significance of this measure.' What did the Prime Minister say? He, I regret to say, was equally misleading. He rose in his seat and gave as a reason why the House should not even look at the Bill, that it was simply a skeleton. My right hon. friend used the word two or three times. "This is simply a skeleton and there is nothing to it," or words to that- effect. It was simply so many dry bones as it were. Well, now that we have the Bill and have begun to examine it we find, so far as the skeleton is concerned, that the purpose is to reduce the powers of the Civil Service Commission to a skeleton. That is the purpose, not to present to the House a skeleton measure which it shall fill' out, in accordance with the recommendations of the so-called committee which is to investigate it.
Mr. Speaker, if there is one step above another which it has been difficult to accomplish in this country, it has been that of getting rid of party patronage with respect to the vast majority of appointments to the public service. Reference was made to the effect that the Civil Service Act has only been in force for a short time, that it has not had a very long trial. May I point out that the Civil Service Commission has existed since 1908. The original Bill to reform the Civil Service was introduced in that year by the administration of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier. From 1908 down to the time of the introduction of this Bill we have had no move for a lessening of the powers of the commission.

We did not have until after the Act of 1918 the kind of criticism of the administration of the Act by the Civil Service Commission to which we have listened of late. We had a measure which was so generally approved that hon. gentlemen opposite said: "We will extend the principle of this Act so as to embrace the Outside Service as well as the Inside Service," and they have taken credit to themselves for so doing
The Minister of Trade and Commerce, in speaking this afternoon, said virtually that the purpose of referring this Bill to a committee was to take account of criticisms which had been made of the Civil Service administration, to take account of the prejudices that existed in the mind of the Civil Service and of the general public against the Civil Service Commission and its work. He said he thought it was in the interest of the Civil Service Commission itself that there should be this inquiry by a committee of the House to remove prejudices and doubts, and to help to give the Civil Service Commission the standing which it should have before the country. Well, Mr. Speaker, if that is the purpose which the Government has in mind, why does the Government not go about it in a regular way? If it is necessary to have an investigation into the working of the Civil Service Commission, and desirable to have a committee of Parliament to show the strength of that institution, why does not the Government appoint a committee for that special purpose? Let a committee of the House be formed for the purpose of inquiring into the workings and methods of the Civil Service Commission. The Government has appointed many committees for different purposes, let it appoint a committee for this purpose; and then, if the committee finds that the Civil Service Act is in need of amendment in any particulars-and no doubt it is susceptible of amendment in many particulars-let the committee make suggestions of its own initiative and bring these suggestions forward for the action of the House.
I submit, Sir, that this measure cannot be construed as a measure for the protection of the Civil Service Commission. It is not a Bill advantageously to amend the Civil Service Act of 1918, but in reality it is a Bill to destroy that Act in very large part. Let me repeat as respects the Act of 1918 that it gave the power of making certain appointments to the Civil Service Commission.	-<
This Bill specifies three classes of appointments which are to be taken out of the hands of the Civil Service Commission and transferred to the Government, thereby permitting the Government's followers, in all certainty, to make recommendations which the Governor in Council will act upon. That is a step entirely in the wrong direction.
I wish to direct the attention of the House to the fact that these classes do not include all classes of appointments that may be brought within the scope of the measure. We.have been told by hon. gentlemen opposite that the blanks or italicised portions of the Bill are only inserted for the purpose of amplification by a committee. Now we have a committee named, and if we look at its personnel I think we shall find it is not a little partisan in its nature. It is open to that committee to add any further classes of appointments it pleases.
With regard to promotions, members of the service in doing their duty faithfully feel a sense of security by virtue of the fact that when promotions are now to be made, examinations must be held by the Civil Service Commission, they know that those best qualified in any particular branch or department will in all likelihood receive appointments on merit. This Bill proposes to take away that power of examinations from the Civil Service Commission and give the power of promotion to the minister of each department in consultation with his deputy minister, and without any action on the part of the Civil Service Commission other than approval of the appointment when recommended. I am told that within the last few months, in connection with appointments in the post offices of some of the larger cities, among others Hamilton, Toronto and Vancouver, men who had worked in those offices faithfully and skilfully received the appointments on merit after recommendation by the commission, but that tremendous pressure was put upon the Government to waive the power of the Civil Service (Commission and to allow appointments to be made by the minister of the department on the recommendation of friends of the party. I believe, and I think with a good deal of justification, that the pressure which came from that direction, as well as pressure which has come from all directions on the other side of the House, to return to party patronage, is the real cause and explanation of the measure which is now before us.
The same thing is true in regard to transfers between the different departments. Under the Civil Service Act these trans-

fers can only be arranged by the Civil Service Commission on merit. This Bill proposes to take away that power from the commission and give it to the minister of a department acting with his deputy minister and in conjunction with the minister and deputy of some other department, and leaves the commission with nothing to do but approve the transfer made. We know well enough that the most unfortunate think that can happen to the Civil Service is to bring the Commission and the Government into constant conflict, as will be the case under this Bill under such a policy. The whole purpose of Civil Service reform was to remove altogether the possibility of ministers acting in a partisan way, this Bill simply attempts to restore the old conditions.
Another feature which has not been mentioned this afternoon, and Which I think in some respects is possibly the worst of all, is that the Bill gives to the Governor in Council power to undo all the work that has been done by the Civil Service Commission and by the various expensive commissions which the Government have appointed from time to time to classify the Civil Service along lines that seem to be in the public interest. I will not refer to the specific section of the Bill, but hon. members will see that the Government has taken to itself the power as respects classification in different departments to change, divide, amend and even to abolish any existing classification, and the only power that the Civil Service Commission has in respect to abolitions effected in this manner by the Government is the right to present a report to the Government for its consideration. It does not reserve to the commission even the right of approval, but simply gives, its members power to report to the Government, and of course on this report the Government is to be at liberty to take such action as it may think fit.
Now, Mr. Speaker, these facts make it wholly apparent that if a measure of this kind is permitted to pass even the second reading it is setting back in a very real and substantial way the efforts of the past few years in the direction of Civil Service reform, and I therefore hope that the House will support the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean), and, by preventing this Bill being advanced a stage further, destroy that possibility altogether. If there is need for consideration of any amendments to the Civil Service Act, let it be undertaken by a committee of the House formed

for that particular purpose, but do not let us proceed with a series of destructive enactments in the form of a Bill every one of which tends to weaken the scope, the authority and the usefulness of the Civil Service Commission.


John Allister Currie: Mr. Speaker, it would not be proper for me to enter into a defence of the various sections of the Bill now before the House. The only question for consideration is the principle of this Bill, and that, putting it in the plainest language, is: Has the time come when it is necessary for this House to review the legislation passed during the stress of war dealing with the question of Civil Service reform? The Civil Service Act created a commission, and the members of that commission have undertaken the appointment of civil servants from one end of the country to the other. The general impression given to the public through the propaganda established by this commission is that the commission is indispensable to the efficiency of the service. I must say it is a very clever propaganda, equal to that of any organization I know of, and even members of the commission are not afraid to stand up at meetings and defy this House, of which without a doubt they are the servants.
There is no other country in the world where a body of this kind is permitted to make appointments to the Civil Service. The impression has been created that we are following in the footsteps of Great Britain. Such is not the case at all. The Civil Service Commission in Great Britain is purely an examining and not an appointing body. I have never heard of the Archbishop of Canterbury being appointed by the Civil Service Commission, nor the Commander of the Grand Fleet, nor ambassadors, nor the heads of the British Consular service,-none of these important appointments are made by the British Civil Service Commission.
Now, our Civil Service Commission has not only arrogated to itself the right to appoint everybody, from a stevedore, on a steamship, up to the commander in chief of the militia, but it seems to resent the suggestion that Parliament has any control whatever over its own actions. A great many complaints have been made to members and to the Government with reference to the manner in which this commission is carrying out its work. We have given it its fling for three years, it has not been interfered with by anybody,

and to my mind the time has arrived when this House should appoint a committee to consider whether this commission is doing its work in a proper manner and whether some amendments should not be made to the Civil Service Act.
In the first place, a commission of this kind is entirely contrary to British principles. We know that Germany has set up commissions and bureaux to carry on the work of civil government. The cities there are administered by commissions over which the .people have very little control. This commission is nothing but a bureau. It has all the ear marks of a Prussian institution, and it sets itself over its masters. After all, we cannot have representative or responsible government in Canada if there is any body of men above the law or above the will of the representatives of the people in Parliament. It is folly to say that you are going to give higher powers to a commission than you are going to give to the Parliament of Canada. The Parliament of Canada, if it is to retain its self-respect, must come to this conclusion, and support this idea, that no commission and no body of men in this country is greater than Parliament. The grandfather of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) fought against the principle of setting up some clique as supreme and above the people. His grandfather fought for responsible government and for representative government as well, and the result has been seen in the growth and development of our constitution. Now we are asked to turn back the pages of history; to go back to the old idea. I am very much surprised to learn that the leader of the Opposition supports that view, because it is quite contrary to Liberal and to reform principles as I understood them and as I followed the leaders of that party for very many years in their speeches and in their declarations. This body sets itself above Parliament, apparently, through its spokesman and they seem to take an attitude hostile to the members. Now, a great many complaints have been made against this commission, and the easiest way to have those complaints threshed out is by referring the matter to a committee of this House.
The hon. member from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) who spoke this afternoon, made a great plea on behalf of this commission so far as its attitude toward the returned soldiers was concerned. I remember very well that when the amendments to the Act
were before the House in 1918 I pleaded with the Government to place a returned soldier upon that commission. I fought almost alone on behalf of this proposal;
I wanted the returned soldiers to have a say. I failed to notice on that occasion that the suggestion received any support from the hon. member from Halifax. He was against the returned soldier then, so he must have seen new light, or he is simply trying to get the support of the returned soldiers to his claim on behalf of this commission. Before this commission began functioning the returned soldiers were getting their share of the appointments. I do not know of one single returned soldier who has applied to me for a recommendation to this commission who has been given an appointment-not a single one in three years, so that personally I cannot speak of the commission as supporting the returned soldier in any way. It is quite true that there is a small clique of returned soldiers in Ottawa who are called in to pass on boards and so on, and who get five or ten dollars a day for their services in this connection; and of course they are very strongly in favour [DOT] of this commission. But there are thousands of returned soldiers throughout the country who are not in favour of this commission because the commission has not given them a fair deal. When I say that I refer particularly to the permanent appointments. It is quite true that a lot of returned soldiers have been put into the service, but so far as permanent positions are concerned the returned soldier has been passed over by the commission. So far as the commission is concerned, the men who are made to quit their jobs and who are thrown out of employment in Ottawa are, as everybody knows, the returned soldiers. I say that the commission has not given the returned soldier, so far as I personally know, a square deal. I am going to sit on this committee, and I do not want any one to think that I am prejudging the Bill and that my mind is not going to be open on all these questions. But I say with all sincerity that the commission has not, so far as I personally know, dealt fairly with the returned soldiers and has no intention of doing so. The fact that there is no soldier on the commission itself speaks against the returned soldier in the first place, and everybody knows that the members of the commission have fought right from the beginning against having a returned soldier sit on the commission.

Now, this is a very serious question for the country, and I trust that members on both sides will consider it carefully. When all the railways except the Canadian Pacific are brought under government control, fully seventeen per cent of the positions available in Canada will be held by civil servants-between seventeen and twenty per cent. Jt is true that at present the railways are not under the commission. If the commission is such a holy body; if it is of such a high order, why do we not have the railways under their control? Why is the Pension Board taken from under their control? Because the men who are at the head of the Pension Board know very well that the sympathies of the commission are not with the returned soldiers or the pensioners, and that is why they fought against getting under the control of this commission. And if seventeen to twenty per cent of the people draw money from the Crown, surely Parliament should have some say. In addition to that, every effort is being made to unionize these bodies. There are already several unions in the Civil Service at Ottawa. The railways will always be doing something of the same nature, and unless the Crown adopts some such method as France had to adopt -that of compelling everybody in the service to take the oath of allegiance and join the army reserve-the country might at any time be turned over by the Civil Service to a foreign body, a soviet or something of that kind, because the number of people who will be available under the regulations of organizations of this kind will be very great. Apparently this commission speaks on behalf of the civil servants as against the Government and the people of Canada. That is the sad thing about it. I was very much surprised to see members of the commission take that attitude. I am sure that no one in Canada desires to take positions away from any person in the service, but every kind of obstacle has been put in the way of anybody inquiring or considering anything in relation to that service. Now, it is a very grave reflection on the former Liberal administration to contend that members are not capable of making recommendations for these appointments. I see before me a number of gentlemen who were members of the House during the late Liberal regime. The Government of that day, under the leadership of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, appointed a great many persons to the Civil Service and kept a firm hand on that service-because it needs a 
firm hand. I have not yet heard of a single officer appointed under the Laurier regime who 'has disgraced the appointment then made-and all those appointments were made on the recommendations of members. The same applies to the Conservative regime. The men who aie now running the service, the' deputy heads of departments, are all appointees not of the Civil Service Commission but of ministers and members of the House of Commons. What finer body of men is there in the world to-day than the men at the head of the Canadian Civil Service? Take the head of the Post Office Department, Colonel Ross, the most highly efficient officer that I know in any service in Canada, private or public. The same is true of the Department of the Interior, the head of which is Mr. Cory, and you can go over the whole list and find that these gentlemen were not appointed by this Civil Service Commission that goes around feeling peoples' bumps, and seeing what they know about conic sections and differential calculus. If men have energy and industry and common sense it counts for a great deal, and no Civil Service Commission can ascertain the quantity or the quality of a man's common sense. In England before the Boer war all, the appointments in the army were made by examination. A young man could not aspire to a staff position unless he was thoroughly conversant with higher mathematics, that is to say, unless he was well versed in algebr? and trigonometry and differential calculus and all these things. Well, when these young men went to South Africa it was found that with very few exceptions they were not capable of leading their men in action. Therefore, the method of examination was changed after the South African war, and questions of leadership, ability, common-sense and good judgment were taken into consideration as well as a man's ability in the higher mathematics.
The system of promotion that has been carried on by the Civil Service Commission and that has been so highly spoken of, is not a system of promotion at all, and I think when the committee investigates the matter, they will ascertain that most of the promotions that have been made during the past few years have been made without examination; that hundreds of people have been promoted in the service over people who had the qualifications. For instance a young man takes a qualifying examination for a higher grade than he has and he holds the certificate, and he has

paid his fee. When the time comes for him to be promoted to a higher grade, I will warrant that not one-quarter of young men like him who have passed those qualifying examinations have been promoted and that the balance of those who have been promoted have received their promotion without passing any qualifying examination whatever. What right has the Civil Service Commission to do that? The question will, of course, be discussed in the committee, and we will ascertain the numbers of such promotions then. Three or four weeks ago I put on the Order Paper a question in reference to the number of persons in each department who were promoted without qualification, and I have so far failed to get an answer from the Government. There is not a department that could not have given that answer in twenty minutes, but the answer has not been given because it would reflect upon the Civil Service Commission. We will, however, obtain that information when the committee takes the matter up.
When the commission appoint people in a member's riding, in most cases they appoint people without any qualification or not the proper people for the positions, but nobody can get out of the mind of the electorate the idea that the member is responsible. In my riding, I have not had an appointment for months since the commission began functioning under the new Act. I might say that when I came to the House in 1911 and there was a Conservative Government and I had a little say as to who might be appointed to positions in the service, I made inquiries to ascertain how many people in the service had been appointed from my riding during the last twenty years. My riding was represented for many years by the late Dalton McCarthy, a very able, intelligent man, and I think we have as intelligent and independent a body of men in my riding as can be found in any riding in Canada. The answer that I obtained was that only one solitary man had been appointed in my riding in 1888. Why should my riding be ignored? Why were most of the other ridings in the province of Ontario ignored? The reason was that most of the appointments were made from Ottawa, and to-day the Civil Service Commission is appointing three people from Ottawa to every one from outside. For that reason, we should investigate this matter and find out whether boys in outside ridings are not just as capable of filling positions at Ottawa as persons who sit around and have a family
pull with the commission. The trouble with the commission is that it is personal, family pull with them; it is not political pull. This applies to hon. gentlemen opposite just the same as to those who sit on this side. If there was any fairness to be shown as regards appointments, I would say: "Let the member, regardless of whether he is Grit, or Tory, or Progressive, nominate the candidate for the Civil Service." The member would surely know the best person in his riding. But that is not the way in which appointments are made. The appointments are all delegated to one authority, and if you are going to delegate such a tremendous power to one authority, you are going to have corruption and rascality and everything of that kind. I do not see the wings of angels sprouting on the shoulders of the members of the Civil Service Commission. They are human like everybody else and just as liable to go wrong.
I fail to see why they put people up in this House of Commons with briefs to fight their causes. If there is nothing wrong with them, they can afford to be investigated. If there is nothing wrong with them, why are they so anxious?
Who is to-day appointing people in the constituency from which I come? In the last election I defeated the man who is now leader of the Government in the province of Ontario, Mr. Drury. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean), hon. members will bear in mind, told the House that the Civil Service Commission, when it wants to appoint anybody in a province, applies to the labour employment bureau. Who runs that bureau in my constituency? Who appoints it? Mr. Drury, whom I defeated. If a man is to be appointed from the Riding which I represent, the Civil Service Commission sends to Toronto; they make inquiry in my Riding, and who do you think bosses the job? Mr. Drury and his satellites make the appointment. Instead of my having some say in the matter, we have all gone to work and by self-denying ordinances, as they used to call this away hack in the history of England, we have deprived ourselves of the right of recommending anybody, and we have given the party in power in Ontario the right to pick and choose everybody who is appointed by the Civil Service Commission in Ottawa whom we are paying. The same thing holds good in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick; it holds in every province in Canada to-day, with this result, that none of the good old Tories and Liberal-Unionists are appointed

by these labour committees that have charge of things locally. Supposing I recommended a Liberal who voted "wrong " as they would say, in 1917, to a position in the service. Why, he would have no more chance to pass that Labour Employment Bureau at Toronto that is bossed by Mr. Drury than a chunk of ice has in a hotter climate

not a chance in a thousand. That is what is taking place, and we might as well face the issue openly, fairly and justly. This is something in which the members of the House will, I am sure, recognize that we ought to have something to say. They say: " Take the service out of politics." Is that taking the service out of politics? Why, that is giving the service over to the worst form of politics, to irresponsible politicians. Everybody knows that the Dominion Government has endeavoured in every possible way to be nonpolitical, especially in its appointments, and the result should be correct and right. What has happened? The appointments have all gone to the local governments, and there are some men sitting opposite waiting to hand in a name to them for some position. The appointee is always a strong supporter of the U.F.O. The Civil Service Act was not intended to be worked out in that way. If that is the case, and the investigation before this committee, shows that to be the case, we shall be quite justified in taking a number of the appointments away from the present body.
The facts of the matter are that we cannot de>] rive ourselves of responsibility in this Parliament. We have taken away our responsibility as far as we can and endeavoured to turn this House of Commons simply into a rubber stamp to pass appropriations to be spent by commissions and other people without any control by Parliament. That is quite contrary to constitutional usage. Constitutional usage means that this House is responsible for every dollar that is spent, for all appointments and for everything that this commission does. Therefore it ill becomes anybody to stand up for the commission and say: "Oh, the commission is so very great and holy that nobody shall touch it or find fault with it." It will be a sorry day for this country when we can establish a commission greater than the Parliament of Canada, and to do so is to lower the dignity of members of this House. This way of acting has proceeded far enough. Under the stress of war we were prepared to forego many things, in order that there might be efficiency; we deprived ourselves 
of any right as regards promotions or appointments of any kind that might interfere with what? With the efficiency of the service because we were fighting with our backs to the wall and we wanted nobody but the most efficient to be put into office. But those days are gone and we have been finding out that we have been very much deluded by the commissions we have appointed. We have found out that in many cases where we have trusted them, we have trusted them in vain. When this committee comes to investigate, no doubt the Government will be able to furnish cases that will surprise the House in reference to the operations of this commission, and I say that members on both sides of the House should have no hesitation whatever in voting for the second reading of this Bill so that it may be sent to the committee. If the evidence taken before the committee proves that the hands of the commission are clean, and that it is functioning in a proper manner, we will not interfere and no Bill will be passed. Nobody wants to interfere and have the appointment of petty officers all over the country. We want to be relieved of that as much as possible. But we do not want these appointments, and all the political influence and power that goes with petty appointments, to be handed over to our political enemies, to people sitting up at night wondering how they can destroy this Government. I may not agree with this Government all the time, but I think it is the best Government in sight, and I think the future of this country, its power and prestige, depends on the continuation of this Government for a great many years to come. For that reason I do not see why the House should be asked to indulge any more in these, as I call them, self-denying ordinaces, where we deny ourselves the right to appoint anybody or even to recommend anybody for appointment. A number of members know that if they recommend any person to the commission for appointment that act simply signs the death warrant of that party with the commission.
I say that the commission has failed to function on two counts. In the first place, they have failed to function in promoting people on merit. That will be proved to the committee without a doubt. One of the reasons why the commission was appointed was to see that promotions were given fairly to the people who had the qualifications. It will be proved that the commission has appointed hundreds with-

out the necessary qualifications; I do not hesitate to say that.
In the second place, the commission was intended to deal fairly with returned soldiers. Evidence will be produced before that committee to show that the returned soldier has got the worst of it right from the beginning. There are returned soldiers in the service who have had the necessary qualifications for three or four years and yet they have not received permanent appointments. Why? Because the commission just keeps a screw on them, and if a soldier looks sideways he is thrown out, and another man, a follower of this commission, who is generally a relative of one of the officials, is given the job. I know how it works out very well, and I could name cases if desired. Therefore, I say that the commission having failed to protect the soldier, we should investigate to find out why they do not protect him.
In the third place, one of the commissioners should be a returned soldier undoubtedly. For these reasons, and having no confidence in the commission as it stands,
I am quite willing, and I think the members of this House would every one of them be fully justified in standing up and seeing that this Bill gets its second' reading.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Do I understand that
my hon. friend considers that the Civil Service Commission is hostile to the returned soldier?


John Allister Currie: Not openly, but I say
that covertly they are hostile to the returned soldier. Why did they withhold the permanent appointment of hundreds of returned soldiers? If the returned soldiers had got their permanent appointments in proper order there would not have been 400 or 500 of returned soldiers thrown out of employment a few weeks ago, and no civilians. The civilians are not thrown out; it is always a returned soldier. We want to find out how and why that occurs. I have the interests of the returned soldiers just as much at heart as anybody here. Until this power was handed over to the commission, all the appointments in the service went to returned soldiers, but the minute the commission started to function, it appointed civilians, and leadslingers. Men who never went to the war got the pick of the appointments. That is the charge made by the returned soldiers, and we want to investigate and find out if it is true. For that one reason alone, I think this Bill should go before the committeee.
My hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) made a long and discursive speech.
I never saw him deal with a brief so long before, although I have often seen him at it when he stood up for a poor case. He wants his friends in Halifax to get all the appointments; that is why he wants the committee to function. The making of appointments has only been transferred from my hon. friends around me to the local employment committees. I do not think even my hon. friends opposite like these committees to carry on, that is the U.F.O. I believe that the Liberals in Ontario are just as much against this system as the Conservatives.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What committee does my hon. friend refer to?


John Allister Currie: To the employment committees that each province has. ,


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My hon.
friend is wrong in this case, for the province of Nova Scotia did not establish any.


John Allister Currie: I am creditably informed that these employment committees or commissions are in Nova Scotia.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: They are, but they are appointed by this Government, by the Minister of Labour.


John Allister Currie: I am informed to the contrary. But let the committee investigate. I think the hon. gentleman, having made that charge, should withdraw his motion and see whether Nova Scotia has these committees. But my hon. friend does not want any investigation. He wants to sit on the lid absolutely.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No.


John Allister Currie: We can easily see whose ox is gored in this case. He is up to his old tactics as a blocker; he is one of the best blockers in this House; many a committee I have been at with him. My hon. friend from Halifax is a great stickler for constitutional usage. I am going to say a word or two in reference to his conduct in this House and elsewhere, which I think should be taken into consideration when he stands up to oppose a motion of this kind. I have a distinct recollection when I was a boy of a case where an hon. gentleman of this House, Mr. Dalton McCarthy, differed with his leader Sir John A. Macdonald, in his views. Instead of jumping over into an independent opposition and saying nothing about it, to his electors, Mr. Dalton McCarthy had the courage and

honesty to go back to his constituents. I was at the meeting, at the convention. There were close to 150 delegates there from the county I represent; and Mr. McCarthy said to them: "Gentlemen, this is one of the most memorable days of my life. I have called you together in convention because I have found that I cannot agree with the Government in its policy. There has been a vital difference of opinion between Sir John Macdonald and myself. I am following the constitutional practice. You gentlemen nominated me, picked me out to go to Ottawa as your representative, and then elected me. I am now placing my resignation before you, and it is up to you to say whether you approve of my conduct or not. If you, in convention, do not approve of my conduct in my difference with the Government, then I shall have to place my resignation in the hands of the Speaker, and another election will be held at which the people of the whole riding will express their views." Well, the convention debated for an hour-and-a-half, and then they passed a resolution approving his conduct. But if . the resolution had been to the opposite effect, he would have resigned, as a man of honour, and as a member of this House.
What has the hon. member for Halifax done? He has left the Government and jumped to the other side. Did he do that without consulting his friends in Halifax? They sent him here, and they should be consulted as to whether they wish him to oppose the Government without putting in his resignation. If things are to be carried out in his way, political honour is going to be absolutely destroyed; it will become a dead thing. How can the people have any confidence in a man whom they send down here to represent their views, if he is permitted to bolt the very next day, without consulting them, if he is going to backtrack on them in every possible way, and vote against their views and their whole position, without any reference to their political views. Now he is asking us to violate another constitutional principle, and that is the principle that asserts the right of Parliament to investigate the operations of a commission. There is no department of Government which should not come under the scrutiny of a committee of this House, and the Government has a perfect right to bring before Parliament, for investigation, any department or part of a department, which it is felt should be inquired into. The manner in which a department's activities are sub-
mitted to the consideration of Parliament is immaterial. It does not matter whether the subject comes up in the form of a Bill or otherwise.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does the
hon. member, by this lengthy speech, wish to convey the impression that some one has opposed the appointment of a committee to make inquiries into the operations of the commission? No one has suggested such a thing, because that would be a fair proposition.


John Allister Currie: And that is exactly the proposition that is put forward in the Bill. The Government, in this Bill, have outlined certain reforms. They have frankly admitted that they may possibly be wrong, and therefore want the whole matter to be thoroughly discussed by a committee of the House, by whom evidence can be taken and all the necessary witnesses heard. But the hon. gentleman does not want any investigation; he wants to carry on independently, above the law, so far as the Civil Service Commission is concerned.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Not at all.


John Allister Currie: I do not think he will receive very much credit from the people of the country by trying to stifle investigation in regard to the operations of the commission, and prevent an inquiry to ascertain whether amendments to the Civil Service Act are desirable or not. I think that a period of three years is ample time for any commission to function without interference on the part of Parliament, and it is about time that the House of Commons took cognizance of the statements and reports we hear all over the country regard-try regarding the Civil Service Commission. I trust, therefore, that hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House, including my Liberal friends on the other side, who are supposed to stand for the principles of responsible government, will support this Bill. I have heard the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) repeat again and again that we must have responsible government. Well, here is his opportunity right now for ensuring the vindication of responsible government. I hope that he and his followers will support the Bill, send it to the committee and have the whole question thoroughly investigated. I am a member of that committee and I, at any rate, will take care, that fairness will be shown to all concerned. I do not wish to express now any view as to whether I approve of the Bill or not. E

believe that in some respects it might be open to amendment. Nevertheless, I must say emphatically that any attempt to gag the House, to shut off discussion, and to prevent investigation of the Civil Service Commission, does not look well coming from the quarter from which it does, and I hope the whole House will vote down the amendment proposed to the Bill.


Mr. ANDREW KNOX (Prince Albert) :: I have listened closely to the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Currie), and I wish to say before going any further, that his arguments have produced on me an opposite effect to what they were intended to have. My hon. friend the senior member for Halifax (Mr, Maclean) was asked this afternoon to state a specific case in illustration of his contentions, and I may say that a case in point came to my notice to-day. In my western mail this morning I found a letter from the provincial secretary of the Great War Veterans' Association of Saskatchewan, which I desire to read to the House. It bears date April 28, and is as follows:
Dear Sir,-It has been noted for some little time that an attempt was being made to return to the patronage system insofar as i.t affected part of the outside services which, at the present time, are under the control of the Civil Service Commission. In view of this fact, I have gone into the matter with our branch secretaries, who have discussed the matter locally, and it appears that, without a single exception, our branches, backed by local opinion, are against any change in the Civil Service regulations which would allow a reversion to the patronage system, as apparently is intended in a Bill which is coming up in the Dominion House. It is noted with grave concern that it is intended taking about seventy-five (75%) per cent of the services in which returned soldiers, partially disabled, and otherwise, who have been able to obtain employment, out of the control of the Civil Service Commission (in which these men have been able to obtain employment so long as they had a minimum qualification in preference to civilians) and putting there branches of the Dominion Civil Service under the control of Patronage. This would undoubtedly throw thousands of returned men out of employment.
I would ask my hon. friend from Simcoe to note that.


John Allister Currie: What was the question; I did not hear my hon. friend?


Andrew Knox: The gentleman whom I am quoting says that this Bill would undoubtedly have the effect of throwing thousands of returned men out of employment.


John Allister Currie: Who is that?	[DOT]


Andrew Knox: He is the secretary of the Provincial Command Saskatchewan, Great War Veterans' Association.


John Allister Currie: Likely he has a government job.


Andrew Knox: Well, I hope that many of them have. According to my hon. friend, it seems to me that very few of these men are in the employ of the Government. To continue where I left off:
Notwithstanding that they have not been properly re-established in civil life, owing to the extremely high cost of maintenance and the casual state of employment since demobilization. The Special Parliamentary Committee have refused to reopen the matter of further gratuity, and as an enormously large percentage of the soldiers are not re-established we look with grave concern on any attempt by the members of Parliament to react in a matter apparently under .proposal which would create a serious situation, which at the present time is at least ameliorated owing to the fact that the partially disabled men have at least a chance to obtain employment under the Civil Service.
We would very strongly urge that you assist in every way possible in opposing any Bill [DOT]having to do with a reversion of the patronage system, and would thank you for a statement of your views in this connection.
Yours sincerely,
T. S. H. Lovis.
I wish to point out that during the 1917 campaign I was an ardent supporter of the Unionist party, and I have no regrets over my action at that time. The one big issue before us then was conscription, and the successful prosecution of the war, and to my mind the next big issue was the plan put out by the Unionist party then that patronage would be abolished and Civil Service reform instituted. As I view this Bill, it is the voice of the Government, and that being the case I feel truly thankful that I have withdrawn from the Government, and am now in no way called upon to support the motion before the House. I will give my most hearty support to the amendment that has been moved.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have listened with a great deal of attention to this discussion, particularly to the speech delivered by my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Currie), and I must confess that I have been greatly surprised in some respects. The greatest surprise came to me as I listened attentively to the hon. member, because, as a Tory dyed-in-the-wool, he was upholding the principles of self-government, the rights of the people and the privileges of Parliament. As one of the most extreme Tories, he was expressing opposition to bureaucracy which, as we all know, is the cradle of Toryism.


John Allister Currie: Was it not a Tory Government that gave responsible government?


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend is all wrong. A Tory Administration may have proclaimed responsible government in Canada, but it was applied by the Reform party after much trouble in the country. But that is not the point. I fear there is something sinister behind this display of Liberalism on the part of my hon. friend. I am afraid that under cover of the rights of the people, the privileges of Parliament, and such other assertions, there is lurking the old system of political patronage so useful during a general election for the friends of a discredited Government. My bon. friend had to make his own confession. He said: "True, during the stress of the war we had to make certain reforms. We had to amend the Civil Service Act, which was passed by this Parliament in 1908 under the leadership of the late Hon. Sydney Fisher. We had to do our duty here in Canada, whilst our boys were fighting and dying for us in the trenches at the front." That is what my hon. friend said in so many words, but he qualified his statement:	"Those days are gone." of
course they are gone and with the days have also gone, like bubbles, the election promises and the sacred pledges of the hon. gentleman. The most sacred pledge was taken by the Nestor of the Tory Party in this Parliament. Perhaps it 'will bear repetition, Mr. Speaker, so that the people of the country may well know what a versatile Government is ruling Canada today-all sanctimonious during the war but bound to the patronage evil after the war. Now let me repeat the words which were quoted the other day by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding)
[DOT]-words which took the House by surprise and the right hon. gentleman himself more than any others. Those words will bear repetition, they were uttered by Sir George Foster during the session of 1916 and will be found at page 907 of Hansard of that year:
Now, as to patronage, I have been thirty-four years in public life ; I have been a pretty close student of political parties and political history in this country, and I have simply this to say-I give it as my individual opinion-I have long felt it and I feel it now-that in the whole course of my political life I cannot point to a single instance where political patronage ever raised the status of the bench, ever promoted the efficiency of the Civil Service, ever helped to economy in administration or enhanced the status of public administrators, no matter what functions they performed, ever helped a member of Parliament in reality, or ever strengthened a Government in reality.' On the contrary it almost always causes the dry rot and disintegration that break up government after government and party after party, and X

wish now, in the white heat and light of this great contest and struggle and the self-sacrifice that we are called upon to make, that we might speak from the heart out, and make an agreement in this country between both parties, that hereafter patronage shall not be applied by political parties in the administration of our public services. Now, that is a frank admission. Some may say to me that I have no right to make it. I presume upon my grey beard and thirty-four years in public life, and I make that statement for what it is worth. I will just append to that one single sentence, and it is this: that if there is any laxity in the public virtue of this country to-day, if there is any canker of public corruption, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred you can trace it to the baleful effect of political party patronage.
Mr. Speaker, the same right hon. gentleman this afternoon said exactly the contrary, and he will vote exactly the contrary when the vote is taken this evening. You have there, Mr. Speaker, an object lesson of the honesty of purpose of the present Government and the leaders of the Tory party. And in 1917, as was stated this afternoon by the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean), what was the platform of the Unionist party? On October 1917, Sir Robert Borden, after consultation with his colleagues, gave out to the public the policy of the new Union Government. The first article related to the prosecution of the war. The second, considered as only second in importance, was Civil Service Reform; and let me quote here the language used by the Prime Minister on November 12, in his manifesto addressed to the electors:
But there are other reasons why the Union Government should be entrusted with power. It has pledged itself to the extirpation of the old abuses and to a wise and bold policy of constructive reform. The system of patronage in the distribution of contracts and offices, which has prevailed in Canada for generations) has been the root of many political evils. It has fostered local and sectional interests incompatible with the national welfare and injurious to the efficiency of the national service. It has troubled representatives of the people, permitted the ascendancy of organized minorities in the constituencies and affected the independence of Parliament itself. It may be that these evils should have been overcome long >ago. Censure may lie upon successive Governments, which have tolerated the system. But inveterate diseases succumb only to heroic treatment.-and heroism has not distinguished Canadian parties in dealing with patronage. Generally, Governments have lived long in Canada, and when for many years distribution of patronage has been confined to the party in power there is a natural disposition to adjust the balance when at length the other party succeeds to office.
Once committed to the system, influences are recognized and interests created that are not easily resisted or dislodged. It is believed that a Government derived from both political parties and strengthened by special representation of agriculture and organized Labour can act with greater freedom and independence than a Gov-

ernment which held office under the old conditions. Hence the resolution to abolish trading in patronage, to fill public office by merit and not by favoritism, and to establish honest and open competition in awarding contracts and buying supplies.
There have been many breaches in that sacred pledge since it was taken in 1917, but the most brazen, the most outstanding is that which is presented to the House to-day in the effort to force through Parliament the present Bill sponsored by the member for Yarmotfth, !(Mr. ISpinney). He is an honest man I know, he has had many years of public service and he has enjoyed the respect and confidence not only of his province but of the members of this Parliament who have known him since he was elected. Does he realize what game he is made to play on behalf of the wirepullers of this party, against the will of the people as expressed in the elections of 1917? The hon. gentleman was elected against the very legislation he is now propounding and I am sorry to see that at this stage of his ministerial existence, of his political life, he should come before the House, and, because of his well-known honesty of purpose, be made the tool of unscrupulous politicians.
If we had any love of tradition in this country, Mr. Speaker, we would cling to the system which Great Britain instituted eighty years ago. There, no member of Parliament ever dreams of appointing or recommending any one to the Civil Service. Every appointment is made after a competitive examination.. That is why Great Britain has the best Civil Service in the world. And the United States offers us another inspiring example. There for many years patronage was indeed a great evil, and the well known slogan of, To the victors belong the spoils, was acted upon by both Republicans and Democrats. But twenty years ago the public men of that country becoming alarmed at the abuses inseparable from patronage, boldly advocated the adoption of the British system, and to-day the Civil Service of the United States is second only to that of the Mother Country. Canada followed twenty years after the United States and in 1908 Parliament adopted the beginning of a great reform-the principle of a competitive system or appointment by merit in the Inside Service. But as the Hon. Mr. Fisher said at the time, that was only the thin edge of the wedge, and the day would come when the Outside Service would be brought under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. Then in 1917 the electors of Canada gave this Parliament a direct mandate to deal drastically with the whole of the Civil Service, and it dealt drastically with it, Mr. Speaker.
In 1918, when my hon. friend the junior member for Halifax became a member of the Union Cabinet, he introduced legislation which brought under the Civil Service Commission both the Inside and the Outside Service. I grant that such a great reform is bound at the outset to create some difficulties and some troubles, but what are those troubles and difficulties considering the merit of the reform itself? Is there a member of this Parliament with any self respect who of his own free will would return to the days when lobbies were filled with office seekers who made parliamentary life almost unbearable by their importunate demands? I say there is not one member of this House who would return to that system. Yet because of the approach of a general election, and because some believe that patronage will attract supporters at the polls, they are attempting to destroy the legislation unanimously adopted in 1918. I protest against such a retrograde step. No such legislation was ever mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. We were not called upon this session by His Excellency the Governor General, speaking through the inspiration of his ministers, to restrict the authority of the Civil Service Commission.
The Civil Service Commission was reorganized when the Civil Service Act was amended, a few years ago. The majority of its members were selected from among friends of the Government, and for my part I am pleased to say that I have the fullest confidence in the honour and patriotism of the personnel oT that Commission. We may differ as to some of their methods, but having sat in this House with the Hon. Mr. Roche during nearly twenty years, I say that he possesses in an eminent degree the qualifications necessary to preside over that Commission. I know Mr. Jameson, who also was one of our fellow members during two parliaments, and I have the fullest confidence in his integrity and ability. The same remarks apply also to Mr. Larochelle. Mr. Speaker, has the Commission been consulted about the Bill which is now under discussion? On the contrary, this legislation is brandished as a weapon against it, notwithstanding that the majority of its members were friends of the party which now holds office. Therefore I say there

must be something suspicious if not sinister behind this legislation which is introduced by my genial friend from Yarmouth. Further, the great body of civil servants is opposed to a return to the patronage system. There are men in the Civil Service who belong to the Conservative party, there are also men in the service who were no doubt rewarded as they had distinguished themselves during the campaign of 1917 against the Liberal party. Are they clamouring for this legislation? No, they have sent a circular to the members of this House protesting against a return to the evils of patronage. But not only have those two bodies been discarded, but public opinion as expressed in the newspapers is ignored. With the exception of a few rabid Tory papers, it will be found that the great mass of public opinion is opposed to this party legislation.
My hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie), himself a returned soldier, had the audacity to make a veiled charge against the Civil Service Commission. He stated in so many words that the Hon. Mr. Roche, Mr. Clarence Jameson and Mr. La-rochelle were prejudiced against the returned soldiers, but on what he bases his accusation, I do not know. Mr. Speaker, I have had some business with the Civil Service Commission. I have received letters from constituents and from friends all over the country making inquiry as to how they should apply for positions. I have always directed them to the Civil Service Commission, and invariably they have been told that they might make their application as the positions would be advertised but that they should bear in mind that returned soldiers had the preference. Not later than this morning-and I am sorry not to see my good friend from Simcoe (Mr. Currie) in his seat-I received a circular issued by the Civil Service Commission with respect to the appointment of veterinary inspectors. This circular, which is dated at Ottawa, April 25, 1921, and signed by Mr. Foran, the secretary, describes the nature of the work to be performed by these inspectors, their qualifications, the examination to which they are subjected, etc., and then there is the following paragraph:
According- to law, preference is given to persons who have been on active service overseas in the military or naval forces of His Majesty, or any of the Allies of His' Majesty, during the late war. The age limit does not apply to persons who have seen active service overseas, but returned soldiers must furnish a certified copy of their discharge certificate, or in the case of

commissioned officers, a certified statement of their military service.
By order of the commission,
W. Foran,
Secretary.
Is that showing indifference to or prejudice against returned soldiers? Mr. Speaker, I make the statement that no circulars are issued without that provision in favour of the soldiers. The accusation, therefore, made by the member for North Simcoe is absolutely baseless. He himself served gallantly on the other side, and I hope he will make it a point to withdraw that charge at the first opportunity, because it might create discontent in the ranks of our returned soldiers.
My hon. friend said that he was a supporter of the Government and that in his humble judgment it was the "best government in sight"-I use his own words. Well, it may be the best government in sight, but not in foresight, Mr. Speaker. It may be the best government according to the tenets of the Tory gospel, but I have some evidence of what the Government is already doing in the matter of patronage with its opponents in a county which at present is open for by-election. I refer to the county of Yamaska. The other day, as the writs were issued, the postmistress of St. Thomas de Pierreville, one of the large parishes of that county, suddenly received a visit from a post office inspector, who was the bearer of a telegraphic order received from the Postmaster General. He said to the lady, Madame Boucher, who happens to be the mother of the Liberal candidate in the county of Yamaska: Madame, it is true that you have served the Crown and the public faithfully for twenty-five years, but here are my orders from the Postmaster General; hand me your keys and your equipment; you are dismissed as postmistress- Sir, that is the Tory method. I was told very gently the other day by the right hon. Minister of Justice-of "Justice", mark you-that a charge had been made against the postmistress and that she had admitted the charge. He did not explain what the charge was against the postmistress. Madame Boucher lives in the same house with her son, a notary public, and when the- mail bags arrive in the morning, in the afternoon, and in the evening, fresh from the train, the ungrateful son helps his aged mother to unlock the bags and to sort the letters in the post office. That is the charge, Mr. Speaker; that is the crime; that is the outcome of the patronage evil now sponsored by the Government.

Sir, I fear the Greeks even when they hear gifts. My hon. friend wishes to restore the right of Parliament, a right which is fraught with so many wrongs that I for one care not for it. The right to dismiss and appoint according to the fancy or the temper of the minister is not a right which should be exercised by a politician. I would rather leave it in the hands of a commission which stands by the principle of competition, a commission in which Parliament three years ago placed its confidence. Every one admits that the competitive system has made of the Civil Service in England the exemplar of all other civil service systems of the world. Canada has adopted that principle; let us maintain it. As the right hon. gentleman once said of the principle of a Canadian navy, we should root it to the soil, root it so deeply that it will never be uprooted. Mr. Speaker, I have confidence in the Civil Service Commission. I have not the least confidence in the Government; it is not the best in sight; it is the worst in sight, and if you put this lever into their hands, I say in all sincerity: God save the country and the Civil Service.


Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (West Toronto) :: Mr. Speaker, I have never been able to see any merit in the Civil Service Act because I believe it strikes at the very foundation of responsible government. As it has worked out I think it might very well have been described as "An Act to Destroy the Discipline of the Civil Service and Promote Inefficiency". If I were disposed to-night to go over all the cases that have been reported to me it would take a much longer time than I am prepared to speak. But I am going to present one case for the consideration of the House which is typical of the way the Civil Service Commission carries on its work. My hon. friend from Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux) said, in reply to the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie), that the soldiers had been well paid. I stated a case in this House in a former session where a man was brought from Calgary in December to fill a position in this city. In February the position was advertised and returned soldiers applied for it, one of them, to my knowledge, being a man of fifteen years' experience in the very work that was advertised. But the man who had been brought from Calgary in December, of course, received the appointment. He had been brought down here; the expenses of himself and his family in coming down here were paid, and yet the Civil Service
Commission advertised the position as vacant in February. I have, however, given that instance to the House before.
I stated, in a letter which I wrote in reply to a communication from the Civil Service Federation, that patronage had not been abolished and that it could not be abolished. All that this House or this Government can do is to transfer the patronage from the members who formerly exercised it to somebody else. Some say that it has been transferred to the Civil Service Commission. My judgment is that it has been transferred to the secretary of the Civil Service Commission, and I am going to submit to my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) some evidence that will establish the fact. The Civil Service Commission is ruled by the secretary, and many important matters are dealt with in the name of the commission about which the commissioners know nothing at all until the thing is all over.-Therefore, What we have done by the Civil Service Act is to transfer all the patronage of the Dominion of Canada to one man, and that man a paid official of the commission. As a matter of fact, this Civil Service Act has been tried and found wanting, and there is not a man on this or that side of the House who does not know of grave injustices that have occurred under the operations of this commission. It should not be tolerated that injustice should be done to any citizen of this country; but there is no recourse; the commission does as itjikes; it is superior to the ministers. No minister can nominate even an assistant deputy minister; that is a prerogative taken out of his hands by this Act. I never could imagine why a group of otherwise sensible ministers should be parties to depriving themselves of one of the gravest responsibilities that rests upon any government, the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars, and should place it in the hands of the Civil Service Commission. It was a piece of idealism. There are a number of idealists on this side as well as elsewhere in the House, and the Civil Service Act is the product of the minds of idealists, but it is a form of idealism that requires perfection in the personnel of the commission to make it effective. You canndt get perfection, and you certainly do not have perfection in the present commission.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Would my hon. friend
abolish the commission?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I have stated before
what I would do. All you can get in the way of Civil Service reform is, first, that



[Stage Direction]
no man shall be appointed to a position unless that man's services are required. The next thing to he sure of is whether that man is qualified. You cannot get any more than that, no matter how you try, and you do not need any more than that. If a position is vacant, I would have the deputy minister declare that a man is required for the particular office. If it was an appointment to the Outside Service, I would have the member for the constituency recommend a man for the position, and then I would have that man submitted to an examination by the Civil Service Commission. If he could not pass the examination, he would not get the position: he would be set aside and another recommendation would come up. That at least puts the responsibility for the appointment, as regards recommendation as to the character of the man, upon the person who is responsible, who is elected to carry such ' responsibility. It puts the responsibility for his qualifications upon a group of men supposed to be specially fitted to determine that one fact. That is the way in which I would fill the public service, and I venture to say that I would get much better service under that plan than you could possibly get under the present one. It has been stated around this House-I do not know whether it has been stated in the House- that there is a back door to the secretary's office. Everybody in Ottawa will tell you that. You must be personally friendly to this friend or that friend or some other friend, and having that kind of influence with the secretary, you are sure of an appointment. I have gone over many cases before that I do not intend to repeat tonight. A piece of legislation that depends upon securing a group of men who are perfect is not likely to be successful in Canada or anywhere else that I know of in this world. We must wait for a civil service commission of that kind until the millennium comes.
Rodolphe Lemieux: Do I understand that the hon. gentleman is making a charge against the secretary, and on what-ground? Is it corruption, favouritism, or what?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I say, favouritism.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the hon. gentleman any concrete cases?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Yes, I have concrete cases. I want to give the House one story and that will be enough for to-night.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Stories are not facts.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I want to give the House a case of injustice. I want to show that the chairman of the commission does not know what positions are advertised, and that after a position is advertised and an unsatisfactory man gets a position or is the successful candidate, the position is abolished because the man whom it was desired to put into that position did not succeed in the examination. I have a communication that is somewhat lengthy, written by Mr. Roy Fraser, who resides at Fitzroy Harbour. Mr. Fraser is an expert in agriculture. He was head of the Arbuckle Institute in the state of New York. He is one of the most highly qualified men in his line that you could get anywhere. He had resigned his position because he was ill and he came home for a rest. While he was at home, he got in touch with some of the staff of the Civil Service Commission, and he was encouraged to write for an examination. This is his story that I want to put upon the record. He writes:
In view of the grossly unjust treatment which I have received at the hands of the Civil Service Commission in the matter of the abovenamed competition-
That is for the position of Principal Civil Service Examiner in Agriculture.
-I am setting forth the facts in the following statement. I respectfully submit this statement for the consideration of the members of Parliament in the hope that in the interests of fair play and responsible government, parliamentary action will be taken toward preventing any future recurrence of a similar injury and toward curbing the arbitrary and unreasonable empowerment which makes such an injustice possible. .
About the second or third week of October, 1920, I had a conversation with a member of the commission's staff. I stated that while I had access to opportunities of higher remuneration in the United States, it was my very strong conviction that Canadians should stay in their own country and have a part .in its upbuilding, and that I therefore desired to devote my training and experience in technical and educational fields to the service of governmental or institutional work in Canada.
The staff member was both courteous and cordial. He informed me that the commission was looking for men of the calibre of academic and practical experience which I possessed. He stated that the position of Principal Civil Service Examiner in Agriculture would shortly be created, and after giving me an outline of the qualifications and duties involved, asked me if I would care to apply for the position. As a result of his statements I became greatly interested in the matter and answered that as I possessed the necessary qualifications and would like the nature of the work very much I would apply for the position.
He welcomed and commended my application and informed me as to the necessary procedure of application. He was also kind enough to

give me an order on another office to provide me with copies of previous examination papers, and stated that while the examination for the principal examinership would naturally be more difficult, it would toe very much along the same lines as these papers. He was further kind enough to suggest text-books and references which, he said, would be of use to me in preparing for the examination. He then introduced me to another staff member of the commission. Some time later he sent me a letter accompanied by an application form. I take this opportunity of expressing my sincere appreciation of his courtesy and helpfulness.
In view of the encouragement I had received I immediately started to prepare for the examination and to devote all my time towards familiarizing- myself as far as possible with the structure and functions of the Civil Service Commission, so that if I was successful in the competition I would be more fully qualified for the duties of the position.
The position of Principal Civil Service Examiner was announced in list No. 65, on November 8, 1920, with announcements of Senior Civil Service Examinership and Junior Civil Service Examinerships in the same list. I filled out my application at once. Before I could send it in, I received a letter from the office of the secretary of the commission stating .that as I "possessed qualifications which would be very valuable in a senior examinership they had taken the liberty of entering an application for me in the competition for Senior Civil Service Examiner." I wrote immediately to the secretary's office thanking the commission for entering an application for me of their own accord, but that I was a candidate for Principal Civil Service Examiner and not for senior examiner. I requested that the application be therefore entered in competition No. 1731, Principal Civil Service Examiner.
The necessary applications and recommendations being filed and receipt acknowledged I continued with my preparation.
In December I received a notification that the examination for Senior Civil Service Examiner would be held, stating place and date, and an order admitting me to the examination was enclosed.
This gentleman did not want to write on the examination for senior examiner, but for principal examiner. The secretary knew that^ yet he sent him the papers for the senior examination.
I immediately called -Mr. Foran on the longdistance phone and directed his attention to my letter on entering application in proper competition. I asked that he correct the error of his office, cancel the senior entry, and enter my application properly, and to send me the admission order for the Principal Civil Service Examiner's examination.
In answer, I received orders of admission to both examinations, and a letter stating that they had entered me in both examinations.
Why was the secretary so extraordinarily anxious that this man, with undoubted qualifications, should not write on the examination for principal examiner, but should write on the examination for senior examiner? Even after this man had told him that he did not want to write for the examination of senior examiner, the secre-
181J
tary sent him the papers for that examination. If the secretary had not some person in his mind whom he thought would be fit for the position of principal examiner, I cannot conceive any reason why he should not accede to this gentleman's request. The letter goes on:
As this was directly contrary to my expressed wish I did not pay any attention to the senior examination, but wrote on the principal examination on the following day, December fifteenth.
Under date of December 28 I was notified that I was successful in the examination, and to appear at the commission's office on January 7 for oral interview. The date was postponed to January 8, and on that day I was examined orally. At the close of the examination I was told that I would hear the result in a few days.
After what seemed to be a reasonable length of time I expected to hear the decision of the commission. When the lapse of time increased considerably I telephoned long-distance to Mr. Foran and was answered by Mr. Bland, who stated that no decision had been reached. A second similar call some time later received a similar answer.
A month after he had been notified that he was successful in the examination he went to Ottawa, and called Mr. Foran's office. Mr. Foran made the following statement:
I thought that that Principal Examinership position was all settled. You are the best man in the competition. Mr. Bland then came in. He said: "I believe that Mr. Fraser would be an excellent man for the position. We would like to get the matter settled as we need a man in the position as soon as possible, for there Is a very great deal of work to be done.
That is a very striking statement in view of what follows a little later on:
Mr. Foran asked Mr. Bland the reason for the delay. Mr. Bland replied that it was due to a difficulty in obtaining certain information i.n regard to one of the other candidates.
Remember this man has already been notified that he was successful in the examination.
The statements made by Mr. Foran and Mr. Bland concerning my standing in the matter naturally gave me a great degree of encouragement.
Weeks passed, then a month, and no further word came. Under date of March 7, I wrote to Mr. Foran. I asked him for .some more definite indication as to when a decision would be made known. I made it clear that as all my affairs and the affairs of those dependent on me were being held up by the delay, that it was only reasonable that I should be given a more definite assurance as to the future of the matter.
Mr. Bland, under date of March 9,-
This was four months after.
-answered my letter to Mr. Foran. He said he was sorry that there had been so much delay and that he hoped to advise me "within a day or so as to the successful candidate."

Four months after he had been notified that he was the successful candidate: You will notice that up to this time the position was still in existence and that it had not been filled:
It was now five and one-half months since the position had first been brought to my attention. I had exerted every effort, led the competition, and endured the long delay as patiently as possible, as the delay had now gone past any endurance I decided that I was entitled to some definite and final assurance.
I came to Ottawa on March 30, and went to Mr. Poran's office. Mr. Bland met me in the hall. Then, out of a clear sky, he stated that the commission had abolished the position!
This was after he had been notified that he was successful, after Mr. Bland had said: "We need a man in the position as soon as possible for there is a great deal of work to be done." Then, when it comes down to the final thing, they say, "the position is abolished." Is not that extraordinary? Is that not an unbusiness-like way of doing things? Is there not a nigger in the fence somewhere? Is there any other conclusion? You can talk as you like about the high standing of these men, but there is something wrong with a body of men that will keep a man waiting around five months for a position, and then tell him they have decided not to fill the position.
I pressed him for a definite statement of the commission's action, but his statement was not definite not were his explanations lucid. I gathered that the commission, through some Parliamentary action bearing on the outside service, was being forced into a policy of reduction of staff and a retrenchment of expenditures. I expressed my amazement that, after all that had passed, and without the slightest intimation of such a development, I was to be thus abruptly ousted. He said "You'd better see Mr. Foran."
And then there is a most interesting case of passing the buck all round on the part of the commission:
I went into Mr. Foran's office. Mr. Foran said "You had better see Mr. Bland." I replied that Mr. Bland had just referred me to him. Mr. Foran said that "he (Mr. Foran) did not know the details of the matter,-that Mr. Bland looked after everything like that, and Mr. Bland was the man to see." Mr. Foran was obviously ill at ease, and had none of the cordiality of my previous conversation with him. I pressed him to make a definite and final statement of the commi-ssion's action and the reasons therefor. He said "There is almost nothing for a principal examiner to do."
What do you think of that, Mr. Speaker? Only a few days before he was told "We need a man in the position as soon as possible, for there is a very great deal of work to be done". And now Mr. Foran comes along and says there is almost nothing for a principal examiner to do.

"The agricultural service is in a stagnant condition,-
I wonder if the minister would admit that.
-and there are so few appointments In demand that we would not be warranted in maintaining a principal examiner. Here was a new and amazing explanation, totally different from the one Mr. Bland had given. I said: "Mr. Foran, in the conversation between you and Mr. Bland and myself a few weeks ago, Mr. Bland said most emphatically that the commission needed a principal examiner in agriculture at once, as there was a very great deal of work to be done. How can your statement be reconciled with that? Can such an abrupt change have occurred in the agricultural service?" Mr. Foran evaded the question; he merely said: "Well, that ds the condition anyhow". I said: "Is it fair that a technical man of standing, having entered this competition in good faith, spent five months' hard effort and hard waiting, should now be put out of the matter in this way? His only answer was: "You had better see Mr. Bland; he looks after those things". I went to Mr. Bland's office, and waited until Mr. Bland returned. Mr. Bland intimated a very vague possibility that later on, "when we knew what Parliament is going to do-
They evidently knew what Parliament was going to do on November 8, when they advertised the position.
-the principal examinership might materialize after all,-
It might materialize after Mr. Fraser has gone back to New York; I have no doubt it will.
-and that it might be a good thing for me to go on an eligible list and-just keep on waiting.
This man had come home and waited five months, studying and preparing for this particular position, for which he undoubtedly was qualified, and was then told that he would have to go on an eligible list and just keep on waiting.
I said that I expected a more definite answer, and Mr. Bland said:-
Again passing the buck.
-"You had better see Dr. Roche." So I went to see Dr. Roche and Dr. Roche said: "The commission have not had the matter before them until yesterday" (March 29).
What do you think of that, Mr. Speaker? Here was a position advertised on November 8, and the chairman of the commission, on March 29, said that the matter had never been before them until then, and that he had not known anything about it. Is he running the commission, or is the secretary? Four months, after the examination had been advertised, and the whole process had been gone through from beginning to end, the chairman confessed that he had never heard anything at all about it. Is that the kind of body from which

you can expect efficiency in the Civil Service? Is that the kind of body which the hon. gentleman from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) is prepared to defend?-a body in which the chairman does not know what is going on from one day to another. Let me proceed:
The position of Principal Civil Service Examiner had not come before the commissioners until then, and then it came in the form of a recommendation from Mr. Foran that the position be abolished.
It was advertised, as I say, on November 8, all the procedure had been gone through regularly and carefully, the candidates, a great many of them I have no doubt, were all examined and the successful man was notified accordingly. Yet the first thing that the chairman knew about the position was a recommendation from the secretary that it be abolished. That is the way they do business in the Civil Service Commission. The chairman did not abolish the position; the commissioners did not abolish it; the secretary abolished it. That is what happened. Am I not right, then, when I say that patronage in the Dominion is handed over to one man, that man the secretary of the Civil Service Commission? I think I am right when the chairman will make such a statement to a disappointed candidate who had been treated so badly. The first the chairman knew about the position was when Mr. Foran recommended to him that it be abolished. The situation is certainly most extraordinary.
He said:	"Mr. Bland is to have charge of
the examination branch, and to add those duties to his own."
Now, Mr. Bland was not the man picked out in the first place for this position, because he was there and could have been appointed; but Mr. Bland, at the beginning was not satisfactory, so they advertised for candidates, and when Mr. Fraser applied for the papers to write, he was told "You had better write for the senior examiner." He replied that he wanted to write for the principal examiner, but again he was told "You had better write for the senior."


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Is the position of senior examiner abolished also?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: No.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: He should have written for that.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I will tell you about
that; it is quite interesting. Mr. Bland was in the department, but evidently Mr. Foran did not think he was qualified so they advertised for some one else. Then, when a man comes along that they do not want and they have not some one to put in the position, he says: "We will put Mr. Bland in." Whether Mr. Bland is the man there or not I am doubtful. I have a suspicion that there is another nigger in the woodpile. To continue:
He said: "Mr. Bland is to have charge of the examination branch, and to add those duties to his own. It has been hinted in Parliament that our staff was reaching large proportions-
Well, I am sure that hint was heard by the commission because it was voiced very loudly in this House on more than one 'occasion, and when you look at the Estimates, there can be no getting away from the fact that the staff certainly is reaching large proportions. This document goes on to say:	,	:
-"Owing to what may happen in Parliament any day now, we are concentrating our staff. This position was a scheme of Mr. Muddi-man's-
Whoever he may be; the whole thing is pretty dark to me.
"He has left us. Yes, the position was created by Order in Council."
Here is a position created by Order in Council and the secretary of the Civil Service Commission abolishes it. That is interesting.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does my
hon. friend know as a fact that the position was created by Order in Council?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: He says so.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That does not prove it.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Well, Dr. Roche says so.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is not so stated by any one in this House who knows the facts.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: It has been so stated by Dr. Roche, and I have a letter from this gentleman who is just as reliable as my hon. friend from Halifax, in which he says:
If it becomes desirable that a statement be sworn to before a notary I will be glad to come to Ottawa to do it.
The only reason that this communication is not iri the form of an affidavit is that there is no lawyer near this man, and he would have to travel to Ottawa to swear to it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Will my
hon. friend give me a little further evi-

dence as to what the position was which he alleges was created by Order in Council?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Dr. Roche said to Mr. Fraser: (reading):
"This position was a scheme of Mr. Muddi-man's. Yes, the position was created by Order in Council, but we don't have to put it into operation, and don't want to."
happen in other departments, but this is the first time it has ever happened in the cornmis-sion. '
Dr. Roche's utterv indifference to the injury done me was a very plain indication of tne commission's sense of fairness.
I then said-
And this my hon. friend from Marquette
will notice.
Now that may be the case, that may be the law, but I submit that if it is the law then the law ought to be changed, or that part of it anyway. If we are to have a Civil Service Commissioner over-ride Orders in Council we certainly are further away from responsible Government than even I imagined and I am bound to say I thought we were a long way from it. But if this commission can set aside an Order in Council, as Dr. Roche said to Mr. Fraser, and I am taking Mr. Fraser's word for it, then that is an extraordinary state of affairs.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There are quite a number of members of the Government in the House at the present moment and my hon. friend might direct a question to them.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: 
Horatio Clarence Hocken: 
Thomas Alexander Crerar: I rise to a point of order.
I would like to know if this recital is relevant to the principle of the Bill we are discussing.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member will recall that I have only recently resumed the Chair. The Bill before the House is in amendment to the Civil Service Act, and I think it i3 highly questionable as to whether detailed information of this character is germane to the principle of the Bill. I think the hon. member for Toronto will be better advised if he directs his remarks more closely to the subject immediately before the House.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Well, Mr. Speaker, I
have read it all. There is only one thing that I did not reach and that is the point as to which the hon. member for Marquette asked me a question-if the other positions had been filled? The positions of Senior and Junior Examiner were filled by Mr. B

and Mr. M

.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think what I have laid before the House-


Rodolphe Lemieux: Were they competent?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I do not know, I presume they were. The point, Mr. Speaker, is that they entered a man of their own accord against his desire. He passed above everybody else and then they put another man in the position and abolished the one that he desired.


Peter McGibbon: Were these two appointments made without the knowledge of the commission?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Yes, evidently. If Mr. Speaker will give ane permission to read further I can show that.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Perhaps the hon. member will be good enough to indicate how his remarks bear upon the subject before the House?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I am trying to show the necessity, Mr. Speaker, for a revision of this Act. I submit that I can prove that the operations of this commission are unfair and lead to inefficiency and ill-treatment of candidates writing for examination. I can prove that if I am in order; as to that I do not know.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I would have waited to
speak after my (hon. friend but I want to give him a chance to answer a question. Does he realize that he is making an ex-parte statement with respect ito the Civil Service Commission, and that according to all ideas of British law and British fair play he cannot do that unless the commission is called upon to defend itself? If my hon. friend wants to make a charge against the commission, in order to be fair towards them, he should make his charge and if .the charge is found to be right such action can be taken as the case calls for. In the next place Mr. Fraser, in this matter, is finding a mouthpiece in my hon. friend while the commission have no one to say whether the statement is right or wrong. There is no solemn declaration or affidavit in support of my hon. friend's statement.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Jean-Joseph Denis: This is my question-


John Allister Currie: Order. When the
Speaker rises the hon. gentleman should sit down.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I fear the hon. member is really making an argument when he is only at liberty to submit a question by leave of the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken).


Jean-Joseph Denis: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet spoken on this Bill and only intended to put a question to the hon. member.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Mr. Speaker, I will
answer the question all right. You give us the committee that the Bill proposes, and we will have Mr. Fraser here to meet the commissioners, who can then give their side of the case. But this is something that ought to be cleared up before a committee of the House.
I venture to say, Mr. Speaker, that the Civil Service Act has destroyed the efficiency and discipline of the service, particularly the discipline. There is no discipline in the service to-day. The Civil Service Federation is more important in the eyes of the civil servants than the ministers of the Crown. Is that responsible government? Is that a state of affairs that this House should be satisfied with? Surely, we ought to remedy such a condition, and the Civil Service Act ought to be reviewed in that regard. This Civil Service Federation assumes, I might almost say, authority to determine the conditions under which its members work and

the salaries that are to be paid to them. ' We know they have been bombarding the Prime Minister because he proposed to reduce the bonus by twenty-five per cent-a proposition that rests on the most solid grounds because of the reduction in the cost of living. Yet they bombard him and every member of the House, and while now they try to get us interested in their cause, at other times they display nothing but contempt for us. If any member is willing to take that contempt he deserves it, but as far as I am concerned I will not take it. I object to a federation of civil servants trying to place themselves in a position of superiority over the heads of ministers of the Crown in settling questions concerning their employment. They regard the commissioners as their employers, not the Government. This Government and this Parliament have made Civil Service Commissioners virtually the employers of the service, and the ministers can go away back and sit down; they do not count for much, and members of Parliament count for less.
But, Sir, that is only one particular case. I am credibly informed that this commission, against the report of a Commissioner of Customs and in spite of the recommendation by the member for the riding, saw fit to appoint a man to the public service who had been a confirmed drunkard for fifteen years. He could not stay there, of course. But when the Civil Service Commission will make an appointment of that character, I submit that it is not the proper body to look after appointments to the Civil Service. You have only one step farther to go-hand over to this commission the appointment of the judges, the lieutenant-governors and the senators. That is all the commission lacks now from being in complete control.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Mr. Speaker, the Bill under consideration is one of the most important, in the principle underlying it, that has come before the House this session. If I read the Bill aright, it proposes a very radical departure indeed from the principle at present governing appointments to the Civil Service. It proposes in very large measure to revert to the condition of affairs that obtained prior to the passage of the Civil Service Act three years ago. The manner in which the Bill has been introduced has been criticised, and I think perhaps it is open to some criticism. The Government apparently are not very sure themselves what they desire to do in respect to it, for they have introduced

this measure in a skeleton condition and they propose to send it to a special committee in order that this special committee recommend the legislation that should be enacted.
The principle upon which the Bill is founded, and the principle that will almost certainly be reported back from this committee after it is inquired into, is that the control of appointments to the Civil Service shall be taken in very great measure out of the hands of the Civil Service Commission and put back into the hands of private members of this House. This is the actual purpose of the Bill. It is true that it does not go to the full extent to which this flagrant evil of patronage existed prior to 1918, but it does in very large measure. Take subsection (b) for instance, it is proposed to exempt from the operation of the Civil Service Act all postmasters whose remuneration consists in whole or in part of a percentage of the receipts of their office. If I am correctly informed, the only postmasters that are on straight salary to-day are those in cities of more than 12,000 population and where the revenue exceeds $20,000 per year. In the overwhelming number of post offices, not rural post offices alone, but those in towns up to a population of 10,000 or 12,000, what does the Bill propose so far as appointments are concerned? Simply to go back to the old order of affairs and have the appointments made on the recommendation of the sitting member or the defeated candidate of the party in power. Objection has also been made to the proposal that professional, scientific and technical officers employed for the performance of duties as such should be exempt from the operation of the Civil Service Act. And that objection also is well founded. There is one thing that the people will not stand for again, and that is a reversion to the old order of political patronage that existed prior to the passage of the Civil Service Act in 1918.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: They are standing for
it in Ontario. [DOT]


An hon. MEMBER:: Not yet.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Yes, sir.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The evils inherent in
patronage were apparent to every one. My hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) laid down a principle that two factors should guide in appointments to the Civil Service. He said that the service should have no more employees than were needed. With that I agree.

He says the second condition is that they should be qualified for their work. With that also I agree. But if my hon. friend from West Toronto knows anything of the condition that existed in the service before 1918-and, indeed, that exists in it yet in large degree as the result of the method under which appointments were made prior to that time-he knows that these two principles were constantly violated. We find in the service to-day people who have been in it for fifteen, twenty or twenty-five years and who got their positions as the result of political pull-because they had friends at court; because the minister of the day or some one near the minister wished to have them placed. Now, you cannot get efficiency in your service under such-conditions. I have taken advantage of the opportunity afforded me of asking members of the Civil Service in all parts of Canada, as I met them from time to time, how they regarded the new order under which patronage had been abolished as compared with the old order under which appointments were made upon the recommendation of the sitting member, and without exception they have in most unequivocal terms expressed their disapproval of the old method and their hope that we shall never revert to it.


Peter McGibbon: May I
ask the hon. member a question?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Certainly.


Peter McGibbon: How were these members of the service appointed?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The members of the
service to whom I am alluding have been in the service for years, some of them for fifteen or twenty years.


Peter McGibbon: How were they appointed in the first instance?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: They were appointed
under the patronage system. It is true that you have in the service a certain number of good men who were appointed under the patronage system. But under that system what incentive was there to a good man in the service to do his work faithfully? What hope did he have of getting reward by promotion? It did not exist; there was no incentive at all.


John Allister Currie: Sure.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: None whatever. If a
vacancy occurred, how was it filled? On the recommendation of the sitting member, who would put in some of his friends, as had always been the case.


John Allister Currie: Will the hon. gentleman-


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend will
please keep his seat.


John Allister Currie: Will the hon. member answer a question? I am allowed to ask a question in this House.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member may
put a question if he has the permission of the hon. gentleman who is speaking.


John Allister Currie: Well, I am putting a question to him. Was it not the case formerly that all efficient officers in the Civil Service were promoted when vacancies occurred?


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


John Allister Currie: The men at the head of
things now were promoted from lower down in the service.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: All that I have to say
is that my hon. friend from Simcoe is not very familiar with what happened in the old days in the Civil -Service if he makes that assertion. There were cases and hundreds of cases yearly in which worthy civil servants did not get promotion. Promotions were not made on merit. Take the case of the post office in the city of Winnipeg, in which I happen to live. Within the past year the postmaster in that city died. What would have happened under the old order of things which my hon. friend from Simcoe and the member for Toronto West wish to get back to? The party managers, the party supporters of the Government in that city, would have been called upon to make a recommendation for the position of postmaster in the city of Winnipeg. But under the new order of things, what happened? The assistant postmaster, who had given years of faithful service, was promoted to the position of postmaster and every one in the city was satisfied that the best man available had been appointed. That is the spirit that the people of this country want to see manifested in the Civil Service, only in that way can efficiency be secured.
Now, who is asking for these changes?' I asked my right hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) this afternoon if the Civil Service Commission had asked for these amendments to the Act. Apparently they have not. Have the civil servants asked for them? I do not think so; I have heard nothing to that effect. Who have asked for them, Mr. Speaker? The Government have introduced, this measure, I venture to say, in response to the pressure

that has been brought to bear upon them by some of their supporters sitting behind them in this House. Some of my hon. friends opposite wish to be in such a position that they shall have an opportunity to dispense little favours; it may be valuable and useful when an election is on. I ask my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Hen-ders) what he thinks of that.


Mr. HENDERS:: If my hon. friend wants an answer to that question, I shall tell him as soon as he has finished, or some time later in the evening.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Well, I am very glad that we shall hear from the hon. member from Macdonald. I imbibed my early ideas on civil service reform from that hon. gentleman; I trust that he has not gone back on the principles he so strongly and so firmly believed in in the days before he came to Parliament.
My hon. friend from West Toronto, (Mr. Hocken) raised considerable objection to the Civil Service Commission. He indulged in a very severe criticism of that body, particularly of its secretary, basing his whole complaint upon an alleged wrong that had been done to a gentleman named Mr. Fraser, whose long recital of trouble and woe the hon, gentleman related to the House. But that was an ex parte statement. It is one side of the story; I would like to hear the other side of it. I can imagine that the Government, in their desire to bring about a greater degree of economy in the public service, gave instructions to the various commissions operating under Government control that they must reduce their expenditures. It is quite likely that on the ground of economy alone the position which had been advertised and for which this Mr. Fraser wrote an examination was dispensed with. It may be that some criticism is due the commission because Mr. Fraser was not promptly notified; because he was kept waiting for several months before learning his fate. Well, if rumour is correct there are many gentlemen in this country just now who have been kept waiting for several years for senatorships. I do not know whether or not they will eventually land them, but the fact that these positions have not been filled should not necessarily bring criticism to the Government simply on that account.
The criticism has also been made by my hon. friend from Simcoe that the returned soldiers have not been fairly treated by the commission, and inferential^ he would lead one to believe that the returned sol-

diers desired to have these changes made. Well, my hon. friend from Prince Albert (Mr. Knox) read a letter this evening written by the secretary of the Great War Veterans Association of Saskatchewan stating that he had consulted all the local associations in that province and that without exception they were opposed to the very Bill which the Government has brought down, and opposed to it on the ground that they objected to a reversion to the old condition of patronage. I am convinced that there are no people more anxious than the returned soldiers to see the public business of this country put upon a plane of efficiency and made free from the evils of political patronage, I venture to say that my hon. friend from Simcoe does not speak the sentiments of the returned soldiers of Canada when he endeavours to lead the House to believe that they were desirous that this legislation should pass.
I do not intend to deal at any greater length with the evils of the patronage system. I think those evils are apparent to every one. You can take this country from Vancouver to Halifax and you will not find anywhere any considerable body of opinion in favour of reverting to the old conditions of political patronage in this country, when government positions were filled as a reward for party service. You can get neither efficiency in your public servants nor morality in your public administration when that condition obtains. There is nothing more certain than that, and if this step is taken, it will be a backward step as regards efficiency in the administration of Canada's business.
I do not for a moment say that the Civil Service Act is perfect; in fact, there are places where I believe the Civil Service Act can be improved. I agree with my hon. friends opposite that in some respects the Civil Service Commission may have too much power. It has too much power and control over dismissals of public servants. But the principle underlying the Act and the whole principle of the administration of the Act are thoroughly sound.
I would suggest this to the Government, and I would be very glad if they would adopt the suggestion, although I do not expect they will. I think not merely the particular matters that are referred to the committee under this Bill, but the operation of the whole Act might very well form the subject of an inquiry by a committee, with a view of seeing what changes could be made in the Act to remove the weak-

nesses and strengthen the whole administration. That should be, however, absolutely consistent with this, that the fundamental principle underlying the whole Civil Service Act, the abolition of patronage, which was promised to this country in 1917, and which was carried out by the Government of the day, shall not be disturbed in the administration of the service. In that way I think some good might be done by a committee. We are getting on pretty well now with the session, and I would suggest to the Government that it would be a good idea to let this matter stand over and take it up at the next session with a special committee. If it is found that there are spots in the Civil Service Act that can be strengthened as regards the administration of this country's business, let us by all means strengthen them. I am, however, convinced that the people of this country will not stand for any interference with the fundamental principle underlying this Act, which is that patronage in the carrying on of the country's business shall be abolished and abolished forever.


Mr. E. W. NESBITT (North Oxford) :: 
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think the rules of the House prevent his being placed, or acting, on the committee.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I do not know anything about that, but I would not like to sit on a committee if I had stated beforehand my views as to what my findings would be. I have been endeavouring to find the names of the members of the committee. I see one sitting up there in whom I have absolute faith and who, I know, will act with very great care and judgment in framing the recommendations of the committee. Therefore, I am in favour of appointing that committee and letting them investigate this question. They may make recommendations that would be very much to the benefit of the Civil Service Commission. If the Civil Service Commission are as weak as some members say they are, and if they are not carrying out their duties properly, it is the duty of Parliament and the Government, which represents Parliament, to place on the commission men who are perfectly capable and who have the wisdom and knowledge to carry out the views of Parliament.
I never dreamed that what we would call labour men-I am afraid we are all labour men to a certain extent anyway-men working by manual labour, were under the control of the commission, and when I discussed this question before the electorate, I never dreamed that purely rural postmasters would also be under the commission. I am not saying that I wanted to appoint them, because the only one that I had ever any voice in appointing in olden days, perhaps, won me one vote, but

he lost me five. Therefore, I was not in love with the job in any way shape or form, nor am I now. But my experience with the commission very recently has been thai they promote in accordance with service and most justly, and I have, therefore, nothing whatever to say against them. I can only repeat that I think, under the circumstances, after all the discussions that we have had this afternoon, it would be very wise for my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) to withdraw his amendment and let the committee be appointed, because I am sure there are on the committee men from both sides of the House who will see that absolute justice is done to this question.


Charles Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the Government of which I was a member was defeated on September 21, 1911. On the morning of September 22, 1911, I walked up the street, from my house to my office feeling that for the first time in about three years I was a free man. I walked up the street that morning having the feeling that I was one of the victors rather than one of the vanquished, and the feeling, Sir, was due to the fact that I realized I was free from the curse of patronage. Now it is because I see in the Bill which has been introduced by the hon. member for Yarmouth (Mr. Spinney) the possibility of returning to the condition to which I have alluded, that I am opposed to its adoption by this House.
Before addressing to the House the few observations that I propose to offer, may I commend to my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) the sage and judicial principle laid down by the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) that a member of a committee should not pre-judge a matter to be investigated by that committee.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman cannot mention one word I said to show that I pre-judged the case at all. I discussed the principle of the measure, and endeavoured to show the House that the measure was necessary.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Charles Murphy: I am not proposing to
enter into any argument with my hon. friend. In the best-natured way in the world I was merely suggesting for his consideration the judicial principle laid down by the member for North Oxford.


John Allister Currie: If the hon. gentleman
had listened to my speech, he would have heard me lay down that very same principle.
[M. Nesbitt.!


Charles Murphy: If the hon. gentleman
will possess himself in patience, he will see that I not only listened to his speech, but made a few notes regarding it, to which I will advert in a few minutes. The longer this discussion lasts, the more apparent becomes the reason for introducing this measure, and the more speeches that are delivered from the opposite side of the House in support of this measure, and in opposition to the amendment of my h*on. friend the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) the more in the open do we see the influences behind the Government that prompted the introduction of this measure.
Before dealing with these latter phases of the matter may I be allowed to refer to one or two things connected with the way in which this measure was introduced. In the first place we had a somewhat Delphic utterance from my hon. friend the member for Yarmouth. When he asked leave to introduce the Bill, he said:
In this Bill there are incorporated, in italics, some tentative restrictions which cannot be considered as final, but rather on account of the Bill not being allowed to be presented in blank.
I confess, Sir, that when I heard those words uttered in the House I did not understand them, and I am obliged to admit that I do not understand them yet. I doubt, in fact, whether any hon. gentleman who heard these words understood them. The statement of the hon. gentleman left the House, as it left the public mind, in a state of confusion. However, the statement reminded me of a somewhat similar pronouncement by the hon. gentleman last summer on the occasion of his entry into the Administration of which he is a respected member. The Halifax Herald of July 14 last published an interview with the hon. gentleman in which he was credited with having said this:


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not think the hon. gentleman would be in order in reading the interview. It is not germane at all to the principle of the Bill under discussion.


Charles Murphy: What I was going to
say was this: An interview with the hon. gentleman was published on July 14 last in which he said that he believed that the old parties were dead. Another interview was published on the following day in the Toronto Globe in which the hon. gentleman was reported to have said that he was in the new Government as a Liberal. My difficulty was how to reconcile those two statements. If, as the hon. gentleman is reported to have said in the first interview,

the old parties were dead, how could it be possible for the hon. gentleman on the following day to say that he represented one of these dead parties in the new Government. That is my difficulty, and I am in a similar difficulty in view of his pronouncement on the introduction of this Bill. That,
I submit, Sir, makes the observation germane to the principle we are discussing. Beyond that, I do not intend to go.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I can hardly see how the previously expressed opinion of any hon. gentleman of this House on another matter can have any hearing on the question that is now before the House.


Charles Murphy: I regret that any observation of mine should leave any hon. gentleman or your Honour in a state of confusion, because I endeavour to make myself tolerably well understood. However, I do not wish to refer further to that phase of the matter. That was really all I had to say about it. I might comment that all this creates a very Strange atmosphere in connection with- this Bill-an atmosphere very different from that which surrounded the utterances of the right hon. gentleman who led the Government in 1917, an atmosphere very different from that which surrounded the utterances of several gentlemen who accepted his invitation to become members of his Administration. In 1917, the right hon. gentleman who was then leader of the Government, now the member for King's (Sir Robert Borden), said on December 13 of that year:
First, we have abolished patronage and no Government will dare to bring it back.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who said that?


Charles Murphy: The then Prime Minister, now the right hon. member for King's.
First, we have abolished patronage and no Government will dare to bring it back. Second, the Civil Service Act has been made applicable to the Outside as well as the Inside Service.
So spoke the Prime Minister of this country on December 13, 1917. But, Sir, I submit that the Bill now before the House is a complete reversal of the declarations made by the right hon. gentleman on that occasion. There was another interesting pronouncement made by the hon. member who became Minister of Immigration in the Cabinet of the right hon. the member for King's. My good friend the present Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder), speaking on October 22, 1917, on the subject of Civil Service reform, said this:
We believe that the time has come when an honest and sincere effort should be made to improve the Civil Service of Canada. Our Civil Service should be taken out of party politics and men appointed to the service on the grounds of efficiency and necessity, and not on purely political grounds. I am talking sincerely to you men and women to-night, arid voicing the opinions of every member of this new Government. We mean business.
Listen to that, Mr. Speaker.
We mean business. Parties in the past have issued their programs and their policies, and made promises, but I want to tell you people to-night that, so far as I am concerned, unless these things are done which the new Government calls for, I will not stay in the Union Government. iS-cx far as I am concerned I mean business. I know what party politics are. I have been in public life for twelve years, and know that our public men have been hounded day in and day out by job seekers and grafters looking for some special privilege to which they are not entitled.
So spoke my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration and Colonization, on October 22, 1917. Now, in view of that high-minded and patriotic pronouncement, which does him infinite credit, surely the hon. gentleman to-night will of necessity have to support the amendment introduced by the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean), and oppose the Bill that is now before the House. If he does not do so, then he must be a victim, for the time being, of what is sometimes referred to in law-and my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Currie), will appreciate the significance of this,- as force majeur.
Then this afternoon we had a speech from my right hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty). The right hon. gentleman said, at one stage of his interesting address, that there was very strong objection to the whole principle underlying the Civil Service Act. Now, we on this side of the House had a very strong suspicion that that was the case. We had an irresistible suspicion that this "strong objection" to the principle underlying the Civil Service Act came from quarters very close to the Minister of Justice. Strange to say, however, the right hon. gentleman proceeded with his speech and actually concluded without telling us whence those objections came. He did not give us the names, nor did he refer to individuals; but that omission has unintentionally been supplied by several hon. gentlemen who made speeches from the minister's side of the House later on in the discussion. That statement of the minister's was very interesting; but still more interesting was the declaration of the

right hon. gentleman when he said: " I am not here to express what modification, if any, should be made in the Civil Service Act Well, what is he here for? What is a member of the Government here for, if not, when he rises to support a measure, to express his candid views upon it and give to the House the benefit of his opinion? My right hon. friend took that position this afternoon, and I made a note of the statement because it struck me, with all due respect, as a most extraordinary one for my right hon. friend to make. If the right hon. member and his colleagues are not here to say what modification, if any, should be made in the Civil Service Act, a measure which, as it stands to-day, is a piece of legislation of their own enactment, then, Sir, I ask, what position does the Government take? What lead is the Government prepared to give to the House in connection with such an important matter as this? The Government and its followers take, and deserve, credit for having placed all these public positions outside of the bounds of patronage, and for having passed the Civil Service Act of 1918, and subsequent legislation. Now my right hon. friend tells the House that there is a very strong objection to the whole principle underlying the Civil Service Act, but, at the same time, he declares that he is not here to state what modification, if any, should be made in the Act.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think my hon. friend intends to misrepresent what I said. I did not say, or, at all events, I did not intend to say, that there was any strong difference of opinion with regard to the principle that underlies the Civil Service Act. What I did say-at least, what I intended to say-was that there was a very strong divergence of opinion as to whether the Civil Service Act had worked out in the best manner to attain the purposes for which it had been enacted, and to give effect to what I understood to be the fundamental principle of the Act.


Charles Murphy: I unreservedly accept
what my hon. friend says, and that just enables me to anticipate a comment which I was going to make a little later on. If that is the position my right hon. friend took this afternoon and now takes-and I do not question that it was and still is- then I say that if the Government desire to investigate that aspect of the matter they should send the whole question before a committee and not submit to that body merely a few phases of the matter, to

which the committee will be shackled in their consideration of the measure. That, I urge, is the position the Government should have adopted; they should have referred the whole question to the committee, and not limited the committee to a few things specified in this particular Bill.
Now, my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), also spoke this afternoon, and in the course of his address he enumerated some reasons why, in his judgment, the Bill should be sent to a committee. He detailed for the House the extensive and difficult work which the Civil Service Commission has had to do in connection with classification and what he styled the troublous conditions during the last two years. He said, and said truly, that the work of the commission had produced criticism and opposition, and added that he had sympathy with the commission under the circumstances. My right hon. friend proceeded to say that he did not want the Civil Service Commission or the Civil Service law to be bowled out of existence without further examination. Well, I take it that that is the pass which we have reached in connection with this reform. We are on the eve of witnessing the Civil Service Act and the Civil Service Commission "bowled out of existence;" but my right hon. friend interposed the hope on his part, that this would not occur. I submit that this observation of the right hon gentleman shows the force of the pressure behind the Government which has compelled it at this stage of the present session to bring in the measure now before the House.
I repeat, if it were intended by the Government to ascertain how the Civil Service Act had operated, and how the general principle had been applied in that operation, the proper thing for the Government to have done would have been to refer the whole matter to a committee. Instead of that, however, they have brought in a Bill which, by its terms, limits the operations of the committee to three matters specifically mentioned therein, and beyond that the measure does not go. However, within the compass of what it is proposed to refer to the committee, a great deal of danger lies,- so much danger, in fact, that if the committee adopt this Bill, and if it comes back to the House and is passed, then we may bid good-bye to Civil Service reform as well as to the Civil Service Commission, and we shall hail again the return of patronage in all departments of the Government

in this country. Now, I told my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Currie), that I had made some notes of what he said. My hon. and genial friend, after about half an hour's speech in favour of the Bill and against the Civil Service Commission, concluded with the statement that he did not want to express any opinion at the present time. Well, my hon. friend was always a joker, and I took him to be in good form to-night when he made that observation. After having spoken for half an hour in favour of the Bill, and in Criticism of the Civil Service Commission, he said that he did not want to express any opinion. Well, for the life of me, I could not see what he had been at during that half hour if he had not been doing that very thing, and I had been paying special attention to the hon. gentleman because I always listen to him with a great deal of interest. Prior to that, however, ihy hon. friend said the trouble with the commission-whose secretary seems to trouble the dreams of my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Hocken)-was that there were too many appointments made from Ottawa, and he asserted that this is what is to be investigated by the special committee. If that be the fact that is a new reason for this committee.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman says
I am prejudging the commission. I have a perfect right to say what I like about the commission.


Charles Murphy: Certainly.


John Allister Currie: I do not prejudge the
Bill. The hon. gentleman cannot separate the Bill from the commission. He seems to think the commission and the Bill are the same. I am not expressing any view on the Bill except that there are some provisions in it which I do not quite agree with.


Charles Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the admissions named toy the hon. gentleman make it unnecessary for me to elaborate my argument. My hon. friend did prejudge what is going to be done by the committee, and he has confirmed that by the observation he has just addressed to me so that I need not pursue the point-he and I are in perfect agreement. The other day the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) had a few remarks to make about the Bill and he referred to it as a skeleton. At the time that struck me as ominous, and listening to the observations of his supporters this afternoon I realized that the word was well chosen. This Bill is
evidently one of the party skeletons in the Government cupboard. That is why the rattling of the bones has occasioned so much trouble here this afternoon and this evening. Well, the attempt on the part of the Government to return to old conditions has attracted a good deal of attention outside this House, and only this morning a letter appeared in the Citizen newspaper of this city in which the writer, after enumerating the provisions of the Bill before the House, says this:
These sweeping changes have undoubtedly had their origin, first of all in the desire of certain politicians to revert to the "spoils** system, tat least in some measure, and secondly, in the dissatisfaction of the deputy heads with the many changes and frequent delays occasioned by the inauguration of a completely new system. Were the present merit system to be given another year in which to put classification upon a really satisfactory basis and to organize the necessary system for appointments in government offices far distant from Ottawa there is no doulbt but that the deputy ministers themselves would be satisfied with the situation.
This is the thin end of the wedge in returning to the "spoils" system, and, if it becomes law, Canada will be the only country in the world to have made [DOT] such a retrograde step. The fact that the thinking public, the civil servants themselves, the public press and the prominent men of Canada, Great Britain and the United States have repeatedly expressed themselves in favor of the merit system as opposed to the "spoils" system, makes it inconceivable that the Parliament of Canada should approve of the vicious and retrograde proposals included in the present measure.
The statements in that letter, Mr. Speaker, I am quite satisfied will be the considered judgment of the people of this country when they become aware of the proposals embodied in this Bill. Now, Sir, the Bill, I submit, is either a sop to the opponents of Civil Service reform who desire a return to party patronage or, if it is not that, then it is an instrument to destroy the Civil Service Commission, and in either case the result will be the same. If it is the first-that is if it is a sop on the part of the Government to those who are opposed to Civil Service reform and who desire a return to the patronage system-it is quite plain what will happen in this connection. The committee will dawdle along, it will kill time, and prorogation will arrive without anything having been done. If, on the other hand, it is not that but is a design to kill the Civil Service Commission the fact will be made known sooner or later, and the sooner the better. I say-better sffoner than later, because one of the first effects of the enactment of this legislation will be seen in the appointments that will follow soon

after to influence the pending by-elections. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, what may be done when this class of public appointees is once more placed at the disposal of the Government. Take manual labourers, whatever may be the character of the work upon which they are employed, whether they are paid by the hour, day, week, month, the job or by duties and you can visualize, Sir, what will happen if all that class of public) employees is once more placed under the discretion of the party in power, of the ministers of the day. And then, Sir, the full effect of this Bill, if it becomes law, will be seen in the by-elections that now cannot be very long deferred. Already we have had the Minister of Trade and Commerce announcing and defending in this House the appointment' of 24,000 census enumerators. A further army will be appointed by the Government-


George Green Foster: My hon. friend will allow me to ask him, even though it was in reference to a statement made by myself, to reduce that 24,000 by one-half. The number of enumerators will, I am informed, be upwards of ten or twelve thousand.


Charles Murphy: I accept the right hon. gentleman's statement and I sympathize with him in the fact that he had to disappoint ten or twelve thousand others who were expecting jobs.


George Green Foster: My hon friend sympathizes with me.


Charles Murphy: Well, even the corrected figures given by my right hon. friend represent a fair sized army.


George Green Foster: Oh yes, 12,000.


Charles Murphy: A little later on an army far in excess of that number will, in all probability, be appointed by the Government .to prepare the voters' lists. Then, as was the case in the West Peterborough election, there will be contracts given and jobs opened up at the psychological moment. They will happen to synchronize, as an old friend' of ours used to say, with the dates of holding the by-elections in the different constituencies. In these constituencies other armies of ten or twelve thousand

or less, or more as the case may be-will be appointed and so it will go on in varying but ever-increasing numbers throughout the Dominion. Now if hon. gentlemen in this House, on whichever side they may sit, who honestly desire Civil

Service reform and the abolition of party patronage, will just visualize these things for a moment there can be no doubt as to the course they will pursue in connection with the measure now before the House. Besides that, Mr. Speaker, I feel that I should say to the hon. gentlemen who compose the Opposition sitting on this side that unless they are prepared, with their eyes open>
to place in the hands of the Government a weapon that will be used for their political extinction they should oppose this measure, not only now, but later on, with all the resources that Parliamentary procedure affords them and go to the length -not only now but later on-of obliging the Government of the day, which has gone back upon its professions and its practices in connection with Civil Service reform, to put any such measure as this through the House only by the application of closure.


Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac) :: Mr. Speaker, I shall only occupy a few moments of the time of the House out of consideration for one of the Progressive group who can hardly hold himself in check, and also by reason of the fact that I feel myself somewhat at a disadvantage in discussing this subject as against certain hon. gentlemen sitting opposite who have had advantages which I never expect to have. I refer to the hon. member for Gaspe and Maison-neuve (Mr. Lemieux), to my hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Murphy), to the hon. gentleman who some time ago occupied a seat in the Government and sat on this side of the House, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean), and to the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), who also at one time in his distinguished career occupied a seat as a Cabinet minister. I say I am at a disadvantage in discussing this subject with those gentlemen because I cannot speak of the wrongs that were committed in times past in the distribution of patronage, and the horror which they now express is no doubt due to the workings of consciences which have long laid dormant. I can understand, for instance, the eloquence of the hon. member for Gaspe and Maisonneuve in regard to the wrongs and injustices committed in times past by Cabinet ministers when they held this patronage in their hands, but of course he has had experience in that particular which I lack.
But, Sir, I am consistent at all events in my opposition to the operations of the Civil Service Commission as carried on at present. Like my hon. friend from West

Toronto (Mr. Hocken), from the very first I expressed on the floor of the House my opposition to placing this power in the hands of a body of three men sitting here in Ottawa. I said that it was placing in their hands a power which was beyond their ability to exercise properly, and as time has gone on I have become fully convinced that my criticism was fully justified, for we have any amount of evidence throughout the country that no body of men sitting here in Ottawa can exercise the powers which have been conferred upon these men and exercise them justly and fairly. My hon. friend from West Toronto in my judgment was perfectly justified in referring to specific cases of lack of efficiency, if you like to put it in those words, either on the part of the Civil Service Commission or of the secretary of that commission. Some exception was taken by the hon. member for Marquette to his placing those facts before the House. But, Sir, I would like to call attention to some evidence which was placed on Hansard within the last week or ten days in answer to a question of mine, and inasmuch as that question was answered by the Civil Service Commission I think I shall be quite justified in making reference to it. I asked a certain question in regard to an appointment made some time ago in Paris, when it was made, whether by competitive examination, the salary paid, and how many persons competed. In due time the question was answered by 'the Civil Service Commission. It gave a list of some ten or twelve persons who had been applicants for the position, it stated the date when the competitive examination was held, and it also gave the name of the person holding the office, and the date of his appointment. That date was just seventeen months prior to the holding of the examination! That is very clear evidence, it seems to me, that things are not working as smoothly and properly as some hon. gentlemen would have us believe.
I could refer to a number of cases which have been brought to my notice, and which prove very clearly to my mind the utter impossibility of three men sitting here in Ottawa-I do not care how able they are- properly carrying on all the work which is thrown upon the shoulders of this Civil Service Commission. They have given evidence themselves time and time again that they cannot do the work. And when you talk of taking the patronage away from the members' of Parliament who, after all,
are held responsible if any inefficient servant is appointed, you are simply transferring that patronage from men who are held responsible by the people to men who have no responsibility at all and who snap their fingers in the! face of the people. What happened a few years ago? A certain position was advertised and several hundred applications came in to the commission. I forget the nature of the position, but that does not matter; I will guarantee that my statement is correct. The commission looked at the bunch of applications and exclaimed, " Oh, my goodness, we cannot handle that work, we have not got time," and they selected a number of men from the city of Ottawa to assist them.
I only remember the name of one of them, Mr. P. D. Ross, the editor and proprietor of the Ottawa Journal.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That was
for a publicity office.


John Wesley Edwards: I have forgotten the nature of the office, but a bunch of 300 or 400 applications came in and the Civil Service Commission referred them to two or three men. These men also were appalled by the magnitude of the task, and they shot their hands through the pile, threw two-thirds of the applications haphazard into the waste-paper basket, and went through the remaining eighty or a hundred applications. When they reached a conclusion they recommended to the Civil Service Commission that John Jones, we will say, should be appointed. Of course, we are told that the Civil Service Commission made the appointment of John Jones for that position. What an absurdity! Instead of the responsibility resting upon the commission it really rested upon Mr. P. D. Ross, the editor of the Ottawa Journal, and his two colleagues to make a proper selection. We might, of course, expect that gentleman to feel that it was incumbent upon him to exercise his best judgment in making a selection-a selection requested by a certain commission appointed by the Government which had been so kind to him in the way of giving him hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of printing and advertising, and that sort of thing, renting a portion of his building and making him rich-in that respect he might feel a certain amount of gratitude and be impelled to do his very best in making a proper selection. Who was exercising patronage there? The editor of the Ottawa Journal and one or two who were associated with him were exercising patronage. And what



[Stage Direction]
responsibility had they? If the person selected by them and appointed to the position proved to be inefficient, who was called to task for it? The Government of the day would be called to task because of the inefficiency of that man. Will it answer before the public for the Government to say in such a ease: We had nothing to do with the appointment of this man; we agree that he is not efficient; we agree that he should not be there, but we are absolutely helpless; we did not appoint him; do not blame us. Will hon. gentlemen opposite take that attitude? Will they refrain from blaming the Government if any man appointed by the Civil Service Commission or by men selected by them proves inefficient? Not on your life; but they will utilize every moment of their time throughout the country in pointing to the inefficiency of this man and blaming the Government because of his inefficiency.
Now, the hon. member from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) thinks it would be a terrible thing to go back to patronage, but he has never expressed any great alarm about the attitude of his friends in the Government at Toronto. The Drury Government have not given up party patronage, though before election they were loud-mouthed in their expressions against it. Ever since they have been in office they have exercised patronage right to the hilt. What did Mr. Morrison say in that regard when comment was made with reference to a certain appointment made not very long ago? He said: "We are just human-we are showing that we are human in giving these positions to our friends." But there has been no criticism or condemnation from the hon. member for Marquette on that account. Not a word will he say about the Drury Government giving out a tender for $100,000 or $115,000 worth of motor trucks in about fifteen or twenty minutes to a friend of one of the ministers, without asking for tenders. Oh, no, that does not strike horror into the' heart of the hon. member for Marquette. That is perfectly fine in his estimation, just as are a great many other things that that government has done; and he will still go on lauding that government to the skies as absolutely perfect.
Now, with regard to other remarks passed by the hon. gentlemen opposite, especially by those who are lined up. along the front benches, if I had any doubts before coming into this chamber whether this Bill was a move in the right direction, they would all have been removed by the

attitude of certain of those gentlemen. Mr. Speaker, you can take it from me as absolutely true, as beyond any question of doubt, that when you see dyed-in-the-wool Grits like the hon. gentlemen opposite percetly satisfied with this commission and the way they are handing out patronage, there is something wrong in the state of Denmark. The member for West Toronto showed to what extent the secretary of the commission was carrying on. I do not know how close hon. gentlemen opposite are to the secretary of that commission, but I have a kind of suspicion that they are a great deal closer to him than I, am and that they can exercise a greater influence over him in regard to making of appointments than anybody on this side can. If they could not and were not exercising that influence, they surely would not be so well satisfied with the conditions as they appear to be.
I want to say right here that the fault I have to find with this Bill is that it does not go far enough. In my estimation the Bill should take the Outside Service entirely out of the hands of the Civil Service Commission. That, of course, is only my own opinion, and I do not expect that it will prevail. But I believe that as time goes on it will be demonstrated that the Outside Service should be taken out of the hands of the Civil Service Commission, and even then I think that the commission would have, in looking after the Inside Service alone, more work, perhaps, than they could properly attend to.
Can you imagine anything more ridiculous, Mr. Speaker, than the Civil Service Commission, sitting here in Ottawa, appointing rural postmasters? Hon. gentlemen say that the object of those who favour that particular clause of the Bill is to return to patronage; that they are animated by the desire to have the pleasure of handling the patronage-of naming postmasters now and then. But hon. gentlemen who represent rural constituencies know that in recommending the appointments of postmasters they would not have occasion to name more than two or three persons in the course of a parliamentary term, so that I do not think that patronage amounts to very much. But there is this feature to be considered, Mr. Speaker: in connection with the appointment of rural postmasters the member is merely the representative or mouthpiece of the people living in the section concerned. Any man who has any political shrewdness will, in making recommendation of a rural post-

master, consult the people in the locality where the appointment is to be made, and in that way the appointment is really made by the people. That is the way the appointment had always been made before the matter was placed in the hands of the Civil Service Commissiion. No member would fly in the face of public opinion in his county and recommend for appointment some person whose appointment would not meet with the approval of his people. At least, if he did he would seem to be lacking in political shrewdness. The method of making appointments to these minor positions was, under the old system, the most democratic method possible, for I say it was really the people who made the appointments; the member was merely the mouthpiece for the people.
Can you imagine anything more ridiculous, Sir, than this? Two or three years ago a little dredging was being done along that part of the Rideau Canal which runs through my constituency. The work was only to last for two or three weeks and they wanted a few labourers. What happened? They had to apply to the Civil Service Commission in Ottawa to appoint three or four men to act as labourers on that work for two or three weeks. Can you imagine anything more ridiculous? How did they know whom to appoint? How did they find out? They wrote to the postmaster or to some other person living in that locality and asked him to send the names of two or three men. Who was distributing the patronage? The one man in that locality who suggested the three or four names. WThat responsibility did he have? None whatever.
In the appointment of a postmaster vhat is the practice? We were told by one hon. member that when a rural postmaster was to be appointed, the inspector for that postal district went out and ascertained the man who should get the appointment. They do not do anything of the kind. When a vacancy occurs and a postmaster has to be appointed in some rural locality, the Civil Service Commission writes to the inspector of the district asking him to make a recommendation. What does he do? I do not know how he gets the names, but he ascertains the names of one or two persons in that locality, and he writes to them asking them to submit the name of a man who would fill the office of postmaster. On the say so of one or two gentlemen, the inspector passes the name on to the Civil Service Commission, and the Civil Service Commission makes the appoint-
182i
ment. Supposing the wrong man is appointed, supposing some person is appointed who is not efficient. What happens? At once the community finds fault with the member and holds him responsible for the appointment of an inefficient person. I heard of a case of an office that was to be filled along the Welland canal. It required a man of clerical ability, and preference was going to be given to a returned soldier. A written test was made, and the man who showed up best by his handwriting and the way in which he answered the questions was a returned soldier. On the result of that test, the Civil Service Commission made the appointment. No sooner was the appointment made than the people of that locality were up in arms, and to whom did they go? They went to the member of that particular constituency and they found fault with him. What was the burden of their complaint? They said that this man was an ex-convict and was out on parole, who enlisted and went overseas, who came back and fulfilled the conditions of being a returned soldier; but he was given preference over men who were thoroughly qualified and who had always been good respectable citizens. The people of that locality did not feel that that was right, and I think if I had lived there, I would have taken the same view that they did. The Civil Service Commission made the appointment with nothing to go by except the handwriting of this man and the arrangement of words in sentences in the examination paper. That shows at once that they made a mistake and a mistake which they had to rectify and did rectify by putting the man out of office. When the mistake was made, the people of that locality showed their lack of confidence, if you like, in the Civil Service Commission, by carrying their complaint at once to the member for that constituency. They held him responsible', and where the responsibility is held by the member, it is no more than right that he should be consulted in making sudh appointment.
In my judgment, the proper thing to do as regards the Outside Service is to put the patronage in the hands of the sitting member for the constituency, no matter which side of the House he sits on. I know that some take the view that if patronage is restored, it should go to the member supporting the Government and to the defeated candidate in constituencies which are supported by the Opposition. I do not hold that view; I say that when a man is elected to this House as a supporter
[Stage Direction]
of the Government or not, he is here representing the people; the responsibility rests upon his shoulders, and I would listen to that man in regard to the patronage of his constituency. He will consult with the people who sent him here in making any recommendations to the commission, and I believe that the public service will be thoroughly safeguarded if that is done.
Party patronage came into disrepute in this country, not so much on account of the appointment of officials as on account of favouritism that was shown in letting contracts. I have had more or less to do with public life for quite a long while, and I can remember, when a certain party was in power and contracts for supplies of this or that kind were to foe let, there would be a list of supporters of the party in power and only those who were on that list could tender on that particular contract. I know that that has been the case, and that is something to be condemned and the public generally do condemn it. I do not know whether that obtained when the Conservative party was in power; but I do know that it obtained when the Liberal party was in power, and that only those who were associated with the Liberal party were allowed to tender for certain supplies. I am not going to say that it did not exist when the Conservative party was in power, but I am not aware of any cases. I am aware of cases when the other party was in power and, perhaps, some hon. gentleman can supplement my knowledge with regard to the actions of their party by referring to something that was done by the party with which I have been identified. I said that it was that sort of thing which brought patronage into disrepute and not the appointment of officials to little positions like country postmasterships and positions of that kind. I do not think there was ever any outcry in the country against that sort of thing, nor do I see that the passing of this measure is going to interfere with promotion on merit. I do not see why it should.
As )regards the cases referred to in the Bill, it is quite certain that the postmasters who are referred to in one clause are mostly country postmasters. No person in the Civil Service is going to ask to be promoted from a job which he has in Ottawa to be a country postmaster drawing $50 or $60 a year. There are not going to be any complaints along that line, and the same is true as regards day labour. I do not see how that is going to interfere

in any way with promotion by merit. The matter of appointments to the Outside Service could be properly safeguarded by an examination test such as we had before, the Outside Service was placed in the hands of the Civil Service Commission. I do not think it is necessary, nor do I think that the Civil Service Commission should feel that when a person gets up in this House to express his convictions along this line, he is making an attack on members of the commission. I have known two of the members of the commission for a number of years, and while I have respect for their ability, I never thought, even with all my regard for them, that they possessed any ability above that of the average member of ithis House, for instance. I never credited them with being supermen, and that is what you have to credit them with being if you entrust them with or say that they are capable of carrying out the work which has been laid upon their shoulders. As the system is carried on now, it is open to very severe and justifiable criticism, because of favouritism which has been shown, because of appointments which have been made evidently without the knowledge of the Civil Service Commissioners at all, through the efforts of the secretary of the commission, and because appointments have been advertised which were filled many months before. All that justifies the reference of this matter to a committee which will bring out all the facts in connection with the case.
Mr. J. F. REID (Mackenzie) :: Mr. Speaker, I shall detain the House only for a few minutes, as it is now past midnight. I have listened with very close attention to the speeches made by hon. members on the other side of the House, and it is quite evident from their speeches, with perhaps one exception, that they want to go back to the flesh pots of Egypt, to taste the old party patronage system. The hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) 'made a very vigorous speech-more vigorous than logical. Summed up in a few words, it amounted to this: Let us go back to the old party patronage system that was in vogue when I came into the House in 1911 and 1912. What was that patronage system, Mr. Speaker? I have been told by an hon. member who was in the House at that time that 10,000 civil servants were dismissed, or compelled to resign and that their places were filled by-what? By 23,000 untrained men and women, that is the spoils system. That is the system my good friend from Simcoe wants to restore.


John Allister Currie: I want to ask a question. Did that same gentleman also tell the hon. member that I read a list of 7,000 civil servants who were dismissed in the first few weeks after Sir Wilfrid Laurier came into power?


John Flaws Reid: I do not consider that a question at all. My good friend from West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) made a very bitter attack, an unwarranted attack, I think, at least an unfair attack, upon one member of the Civil Service Commission in particular. He wants this House to believe that the actions of the Civil Service Commission have been such that power should be taken out of their hands, and that appointments have been made before positions were advertised. Now I want to speak of the Civil Service Commission as I have found them. Even after I ceased to be a constant supporter of the Government, I found no difference in the commission when I would recommend a returned soldier for a position that was vacant. I have no special axe to grind;
I am simply speaking of the commission as I have found them. In regard to the secretary, Mr. Foran, I have always found him a gentleman; he has always treated me courteously. The Civil Service Commissioners are Tory appointees, I believe, and it seems strange indeed that they would not treat well birds of their own feather, or at all events treat them a little better than their opponents. I remember very well in the campaign of 1917 the right hon. the member for King's (Sir Robert Borden) and two of his ministers toured the West. One of them has since gone to his reward; I refer to the late Right Hon. Arthur A. L. Sifton. The other minister who accompanied the ex-Prime Minister was the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), who was in the Cabinet at that time. My hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Tweedie) was also on the platform that night in the city of Calgary. The three gentlemen I have named stated distinctly that the Union Government had abolished the party patronage system. Now I presume that the present Government is the successor of the Union Government of 1917, led by the right hon. the present member for King's. That being the case, why do they go back on their pledge? Was it merely a plank adopted for the purpose of getting the vote of the western farmers for the Union Government, because our good friends very well knew that one of the strong planks in the platform of organized agriculture in the West was Civil Service reform. I do not believe that that was in the mind of the ex-Prime Minister, and I am sorry that this Government proposes to take a retrograde step and go back to the old system of patronage and corruption.
* I do not contend that the present system is altogether perfect. There is room for reform, but a step in the right direction has been taken. There is one thing I have noticed, and that is that the Civil Service organization strongly support the present system of leaving appointments to the Civil Service Commission; they are strongly in favour of the competitive system of appointment, and the principle of promotions on merit. If we are to reverse conditions there will be no incentive for men in the service, because they will know very well-many of them were in the Civil Service under the old patronage system- what would happen. We need only recall the conditions that obtained in the Printing Bureau before 1918. Since that time hundreds of employees of the Printing Bureau have been pensioned off. Why? Simply because a great many of those employees were put there, no doubt by both parties, because they were good party heelers, but so far as the Printing Bureau was concerned they were misfits, and had never been trained to the printing business. Their appointment was the reward for political service in political campaigns. Surely we do not want to go back to that system, and I sincerely hope we shall not.
It seems to me from reading this Bill, as a layman, that this proposal would destroy our Civil Service system, because I find that it provides that everything which the Civil Service Commission would do must be referred to the Governor in Council. As I read it, that means that the power is taken from the commission and reverts to the Government. It means that we shall have corruption as we had it in the olden days, when thousands of civil servants were dismissed to make place for party heelers of the Government then in power. We have seen something of this in the West; perhaps it has not been as bad out there as in the East, but it has been bad enough.
I shall have much pleasure in supporting the amendment introduced by the senior member for Halifax.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I
shall not detain the House very long. I believe that in the constitution of the Civil Service Commission the Government went

too far and too fast. I do not think the country was ready for such a radical change involving such a tremendous work as was thrown upon the commission when they undertook it. I do not think that the commission was then, or is now, properly manned and equipped to take care of the work undertaken by it over the whole extent of the Dominion of Canada, particularly in connection with the Outside Service. So far as the commission is concerned, while I have not had much personal contact with them, I have been obliged to send letters on to them that were directed to me by mistake; and though I would hardly venture to make any recommendation, I have always found a ready response and a reasonable action in connection with all correspondence I have sent them. I think it is fair to give credit both to the secretary and to the members of the commission, so far, at any rate, as I am personally concerned, in regard to anything that I have asked them to do. Of course, I have never had the temerity to recommend people for positions, as my hon. friend from Mackenzie (Mr. Reid) is in the habit of doing. I should be afraid to attempt to do anything of the kind, and I have a rather higher conception of my position as a member of Parliament than to dare to do anything so bold as that.


John Flaws Reid: I said a
returned soldier. I am very much surprised that my hon. friend would not recommend a returned soldier for any position.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I do not know that even that, under the circumstances, is a good excuse. It is the best one the iton. gentleman could find, but I did not hear him say that it was only returned soldiers in Whom he took an interest. However, that is by the way. Now, the reason I support this Bill being sent to the committee springs out of the abstract statement I made at first:	I do not believe the Civil
Service Commission can manage the whole public service of the country. Let me give, in illustration, an Ontario case in connection with the Marine Department. I am informed on excellent authority that the commission undertook to institute an organization for steam boiler inspection at Toronto, and, after much deliberation, the commission recommended three men, named Evans, Stewart and Arnold, for the purpose. Now, Evans at the time had been placed on the retired list; Stewart was said to be competent; and Arnold had been dead for about six months. That case can be

verified, and it is due to the Civil Service Commission that it should be stated in this House, so that before this committee gets to work they can prepare an answer to show whether or not there was efficiency in connection with this matter. There is an Ottawa case also. "A" wrote an examination for inspector of immigration in June, 1920, and passed fourth highest in all Canada. Observe, this was in June, 1920. Last week he heard that five appointments were to be made. He made inquiry of the commission and was told that he must know the French language. He replied: "I do; I understand it almost .perfectly." He got past that point; he told them: "My papers show that I understand the language. If you had read my papers you would have seen that I understand the French language." They then told him that he should see someone else on the staff,-it is a sort of repetition of the story told by the hon. member for Toronto West (Mr. Hocken), another case of passing the buck. He went to this other Mr. So-and-So, who told him: "Well, you know, we must fill these positions with returned soldiers." Well, this gentleman replied:	"I went over early in the war
and did not return until after the armistice, and my papers show that fact too." Now, I say that these two cases show lack of consideration, lack of knowledge, lack of proper manning, lack of capacity; they demonstrate that the work is too big and too extensive to be allotted to any single board, at least until the Inside Service has been under way for years, and has been properly crystallized, and until efficiency is secured in regard to the public service. This efficiency is possible if half of the service is undertaken by the commission instead of the whole thing at once. Before the Pensions and Re-establishment Committee the other day appeared Mr. Dobbs. He was sworn, and took up the case of Christian Nelson, a double leg amputation case. Nelson was a heavy man, and had applied for a position. The evidence states:
This man applied for a position, I was given to understand at the time, on December 17 last, [DOT]that there was a vacancy for a switch board operator in the Post Office in Toronto. He made application on December 17, and I helped to make out his application. . . . Finally, Colonel Ross, the chief superintendent, recommended this man as a stamp vendor, which position I believe has gone through. I learned that only this morning. But on consultation with them this morning we found there was neither his application for the position nor any correpond-ence on the file previous to March 24. Where it has gone I do not know.
Mr. MacNeil: Was it sent to the department? Mr. Dobbs: To the department or the Civil Service Commission?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member is not in order in referring to evidence taken before a standing committee which has not reported to the House.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and will read no further. But this man, this double amputation case,_ as can be proved, on making his application, could not, get the position which he desired, but they advised him in a letter from the Civil Service Commission to apply for the post of letter carrier,-without any legs to carry letters on!


Mr. C. G. POWER:: (Quebec South): After hearing the remarks made by some hon. gentlemen opposite, particularly the member for Simcoe (Mr. Currie), the member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken), the member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), and the member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy),
I have been wondering whether the criticism of the Civil Service Commission, and particularly of the secretary, would have been so bitter had this gentleman paraded on the same day as some of these hon. members. I would say to these hon. gentlemen that, while criticising the secretary, they might have helped their case to a considerable degree by showing their impartiality at the same time in a strong criticism of the other members of the commission. After all, the secretary is only the servant of the commission, and if the three commissioners are not competent to manage the business of the commission, then I should think that hon. gentlemen opposite should ask, first, for the dismissal of the commissioners before advocating that of their paid servant. If the commissioners are incompetent, the secretary should be commended for having taken so much of their work upon his own shoulders. If, on the other hand, they are competent, then they should be in a position to keep the secretary in his place.
It was not for the purpose of stating this, however, that I rose at this late hour; it was merely to correct a misapprehension under which the hon. gentleman from North Simcoe seems to be labouring. I am sorry the hon. gentleman is not in his seat at this moment. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I could not catch your eye at an earlier period in the evening when my hon. friend was present. The hon. gentleman, speaking on behalf of the returned soldiers seemed to wish the House to be under the impression that they were in favour of the present Bill and, generally speaking, of the abolition of the Civil Service Commission.
I do not know whether or not the hon. gentleman gets his information from individuals who, at meetings presided over by him, made references to the Prime Minister of Canada of such a character that it was said that members of the Government refused to meet one particular speaker. I do not know whether the hon. member for North Simcoe gets his information from individuals such as those. As for myself, Sir, I go to what I consider the best authority that I know of in connection with returned soldiers. I go to what I consider the organization of returned soldiers that is most truly representative and which, as a rule, most sincerely and most clearly expresses the views of the great mass of returned men-I refer to the Great War Veterans' Association. Consulting the Ottawa Citizen of Friday, under the heading "Veterans Opposed to Patronage Bill"
I read the following:
The G.W.V.A., however, will vigorously oppose the Bill. Mr. C. Grant MacNeil, Dominion Command Secretary, stated that the G.W. V.A. was wholly and totally opposed to the new Bill. The G.W.V.A. had seen this coming some time ago and had consulted the various provincial commands and these without exception, had instructed the Dominion command to vigorously oppose the proposal.
I understand that a letter was read in this House from the Saskatchewan Provincial Command, and I have no doubt before long a large number of members will receive letters from other provincial and local commands.
One G.W.V.A. official stated that the next step might be a proposal to. take out of the Civil Service Act the clause providing for preferential treatment for returned sdldiers. Certain M.P.'s have stated that this preferential clanse had disorganized the service. The G.W. V.A. points out that such is not the case as no returned soldiers have been appointed to positions for which they were not fully qualified. The preferential clause merely allows a returned soldier to get the position over a civilian, all other things being equal.
Now, Sir, we have here what the authorized officials of the Great War Veterans' Association have to say on the matter. They are of opinion, and decidedly of opinion, that the restoration of patronage would not be in the best interests of the country. We have heard further from my hon. friend from North Simcoe, whom I am glad now to see in the chamber, that should patronage he restored we will find that better treatment will be given to returned soldiers than they now receive.


John Allister Currie: Hear, hear.


Charles Gavan Power: I am glad my hon. friend is will to admit that he made that statement. Now, Sir, the Government has recently decided to take out of the hands of the Civil Service Commission the appointment of census enumerators and commissioners. We were told that there were to be 24,000 enumerators appointed, but I am glad to learn from what the Minister of Trade and Commerce has told us to-night that the number is only to be 12,000. This, if I understand rightly, is the first occasion on which the present Government has had a chance to exercise the patronage power. On this occasion how did it treat returned soldiers? I have in my hand a copy of Hansard of April 14, last, in which appears an answer to a question by the hon. member of Inverness (Mr. Chisholm) as to how many census commissioners had been appointed for each of the provinces of Canada, and how many of them are returned soldiers. The answer given by Sir George Foster is as follows:
	Number	Number Commis- sioners
	Corftmis-	Returned
Province	sioners	SoldiersAlberta	. . 13	6Less than half.	Number	Returned SoldiersBritish Columbia..	.. 15	13
Evidently the members of Parliament representing British Columbia paid somewhat more attention to the requests of the returned soldiers than the members from some of the other provinces.
Returned Number Soldiers
Manitoba	
15	4New Brunswick ..	J.	11	4Nova Sootia	
14	4
Four would seem to be the favourite number.
Returned Number Soldiers
Ontario	 82	47
I sincerely hope that the census commissioner for North Simcoe is a returned soldier.


John Allister Currie: He is a returned soldier.


Charles Gavan Power: I wish the member for North Simcoe had used his influence with his colleagues in the House to have returned [DOT]oldiers appointed in their constituencies.


John Allister Currie: I generally practise what I preach.


Charles Gavan Power: Returned Number Soldiers
Prince Edward Island 3	2
Quebec	
71	18Saskatchewan	
16	11Canada	
240	109
So that on the first occasion when the Government had an opportunity of doing away with patronage and so improving the lot of the returned soldier, it filled less than half of these posts by the appointment of returned soldiers. Surely no hon. gentleman opposite will rise in his seat and say that in his constituency no returned soldier was fit to hold such a position. I am sure that no hon. gentleman will say that, and if he does not do so how can he explain the reason for the appointment of comparatively few returned soldiers who, in a large number of instances, are responsible members sitting in this House.
Now, Sir, we have been told by the hon. memiber for North Simcoe that at the time this Act was introduced he asked that a returned soldier be appointed on the commission. If that is true I think the returned soldiers will thank him for his interest in their behalf. I should have thought, however, that he would have had sufficient influence with his colleagues to have insisted upon the appointed. I have come to the conclusion, however, that a Cabinet professedly formed in the interests of the returned soldiers which could not give a returned soldier a place in its ranks could not be expected to give a returned soldier representation on any other body.
I have only this much further to add-that should this project ibe carried	into execution we	will beface	to	face with this	situation:
Hon. gentlemen opposite were carried into power on one of the basic principles of their platform,-reform of the Civil Service. For four years they allowed the Civil Service to be reformed in order not to meet their responsibility of making appointments when such appointments would have been difficult to make. As any member who has had anything to do with patronage knows, during the lull between one election and another members are confronted with serious difficulties in relation to the exercise of patronage. Hon. gentlemen opposite did not take the courageous course when they had an opportunity to do so, but now on the eve of a general election, when it is possible to employ hundreds of thousands of men throughout

the country, they are only too glad to seek this belated opportunity to exercise patronage in the hope that by so doing they may obtain votes which otherwise would be lost to them. It hon. gentlemen opposite wish to obtain an honest judgment on their misdeeds, if every hon. member wishes the people to express their opinion fairly and squarely on the questions of the day, it is their duty to oppose this measure in every way they can and to the utmost limit provided by the constitution.


John Allister Currie: I should like to ask the hon. member if he approves of the system of keeping a returned soldier in the Civil Service for two, three and four years without making his position permanent?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not understand
what the hon. gentleman says.


John Allister Currie: I asked him if he approved of the system followed by the Civil Service Commission of keeping a returned soldier for years in the Civil Service without making his appointment permanent.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know whether the Civil Service Commission ever did that; hut if the commission kept a man in the service for that length of time without making his appointment permanent because he was not qualified to fill the position, I do not want him in the Civil Service, whether he is a returned soldier or not.


John Allister Currie: You are backing up on it.


Richard Coe Henders: Mr. Speaker, when the Government made its appeal to the people in 1917 one of the planks of its programme was the abolition of patronage. In the West that was a popular cry, and the people generally responded to that appeal. Shortly. after the Government came into power they redeemed their election pledge. I am not here to criticise severely the operations of the Civil Service Commission. I believe that in large measure the appointment of that commission has been attended with a very reasonable amount of success and that on the whole it has worked fairly satisfactorily. But having said that, I do not mean to insinuate for one moment that complaints have not been made of serious defects in the working out of the Act. The work undertaken was of great importance and diversity, and it was only reasonable to expect that we would not get perfection in the operation of the Act. The Government has now reached the point where they find that these complaints have crystalliged into
a certain amount of opinion that has made it necessary for them to take action with a view to removing the defects complained of, and in order to do that they have introduced in skeleton form a Bill to he submitted to a committee of this House for consideration and recommendation.
The serious defect as I see it, looking on as a novice, I might say, is that men experienced in political matters have been able to read into the recommendations that have been made by the Government in this tentative Bill what I have not been able to discover myself, namely, that the Bill contains suggestions for the abolition of the Civil Service Commission. The Prime Minister some days ago stated distinctly that this was a measure to bring before hon. members certain suggestions in order to secure recommendations that would he beneficial in helping us to reach conclusions for the adoption of a better system than that which we now have. The statement was made to-day that this Bill simply meant the introduction of patronage. I do not see it in that light. Surely this Parliament is capable of looking into and correcting any defects in the present Act and giving us a measure that will have less blemishes. Possibly the old parliamentarian is able to see what the novice does not, and consequently, to express forebodings regarding the return of patronage, but I think it would be safer for us at this late hour to submit gracefully to the recommendation of the Government to place all the facts before the committee for consideration and recommendation, and surely our hands are not tied by taking this course. If the recommendations then made are such as to vindicate the fears that have been expressed, that will be the time for us to lay bare these troubles and to take action with a view to correcting them. I see no reason why we should not submit this matter to a committee which will have all the facts before them and which will submit a report for the consideration of the House.
Reference has been made by the member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) to an appointment made in the city of Winnipeg and to the general satisfaction which attended that appointment. I wish to corroborate what he said in that regard; I believe that general satisfaction was( expressed in that appointment by the people of Winnipeg. But I want to put beside it a matter that came to my notice only last week. I was brought face to face with a person who made a statement which showed that there was serious lack of con-

sideration somewhere in connection with appointments that were to be made in Ontario and where the very principle complained of by members on the opposite side would seem to have thrust itself into the forefront and to have been the cause of a misunderstanding and bad administration. Cases of this kind ought to come before this committee and out of those cases there ought to be evolved some plan by which the difficulty would be overcome and a better system obtained than that which we now have. Let us trim up the weaknesses in1 the system. The principle is right; we want to stand by that principle as we have it.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: Notwithstanding the protests of some of my friends round about me and the anxious looks of some gentlemen opposite, I would like to make a few observations in regard to this Bill. The discussion seems to have proceeded upon the basis that this is a Bill to abolish the Civil Service Act which was passed in 1918 and to return absolutely to the patronage system as it existed prior to that time. The hon. member for Halifax has discussed the matter in great detail and has laid much stress upon tfye calamities which might result if this Bill passes. His first point was that there would be wholesale dismissals-this point was supported by the hon. member from Mackenzie (Mr. Reid)-and that party heelers would be placed in the positions thus vacated. But the hon. member for Halifax had more to do with the drafting of the Civil Service Act as passed in 1918 than any other member of the Government, and the power of dismissals under the Bill which is introduced to-day is exactly the same as that which was incorporated in the Bill which he piloted through the House. The power of dismissal of civil servants depends not upon this proposed legislation, but upon section 28 of the original Act, and if it is wrong to place in the hands of the Government the power to dismiss civil servants, then the member for Halifax is more than any other person chargeable with the responsibility of giving the Government any such power. If hon. members will take the trouble to read that section they will see exactly what the power of the Government is in that connection.
The hon. member for Mackenzie and the hon. member for Halifax would have the members of the House believe that if this legislation passes, every appointment in the Civil Service may be made by the Gov-

ernment. But there has been no change in the principle of the Civil Service Act except in respect to appointments enumerated in the first section of the Bill. These are limited to manual labourers, postmasters and professional, scientific and technical men. The hon. member from Halifax, when he was protesting to-day so strongly against this Bill, did not say that manual labourers should be appointed by the Civil Service Commission. He acknowledged that there were grave doubts whether the course taken under the Act of 1918 should any longer be followed; he admitted that that was a defect in the Act which required to be remedied. But rather than take the responsibility of attacking the difficulty which arises in connection with the Act the hon. gentleman would allow an ineffective law to drift along and have appointments made by the Civil Service Commission in cases with which they should have .nothing to do. In reference to country postmasters, while it looks as though postmasters who receive a percentage of the revenue may be appointed by the Government, the real test in connection with the appointment of all these postmasters is the fact that before they become permanent employees of the Government they must receive a certificate from the Civil Service Commission. The necessity for this provision must be apparent to every hon. member who represents a rural constituency. In a remote section of the country a postmaster receiving $50 or $75 or $100 a year may die and it is necessary that an appointment be made immediately so that the duties of the office may be carried on without undue interruption. But in the past these offices have been kept vacant; for months the vacancy has remained unfilled simply because it has been necessary to have the appointment made by the Civil Service Commission in Ottawa. In this respect I think the Bill is quite justified; power should be given to the Government to enable the Post Office Department, through its inspectors, to make the appointment at once, and after that appointee has been there for six months or less he must get a certificate from the Civil Service Commission if he desires to become a permanent employee.
With regard to the third class mentioned, professional', scientific and technical men, I think the commission itself has realized that to follow out the Act strictly is not feasible. If the Government assumes the responsibility of making these appointments, who is responsible for giving them

that power? In order to do that it is not necessary that we should amend the Act as provided in this Bills, because section 38 of the Act passed in 1918-for which, as I say, the hon. member for Halifax is largely responsible-provides that in any event, where the commission decides that it is not practicable to apply the Act to appointments to any position or positions, the commission, with the approval of the Governor in Council, may make such regulations as are deemed advisable describing how such position or positions are to be dealt with. It is in connection with technical, scientific and professional men that the Civil Service Commission have found it necessary to depart from the Civil Service Act and to provide regulations for appointment.
In connection with practically all appointments to professional or technical positions in the Government service there has to be another commission appointed by the Civil Service Commission to do the work which the Civil Service Commission are unable to do. They engage the services of three or four professional lawyers or engineers or chemists, and so on, and to them they delegate the power of selecting the men who shall fill these professional, scientific or technical position. The Civil Service Commission have demonstrated ab-salutely, by the manner in which they make those appointments, that the Civil Service Act is not applicable to those positions. They have found it necessary to have other regulations passed, and the question in connection with those appointments is: Should the Civil Service Commission have the power to delegate their authority, or should the authority be exercised by the Government in making those appointments? I believe in the best interests of the service, the Government should make the appointments of those professional, technical and scientific men. The Government are in close touch with the deputy heads of the departments, and in the matter of making these appointments, I believe they are absolutely sincere in their desire to get the highest grade of technical men who may be employed in this country.
The Bill goes a little further, and what objection can be taken to any clauses in it? The whole argument which we hear is that the provisions of the Bill lead one to believe that it places the power absolutely in the Government, so that they may, without consideration of other parties, make any promotion which they see fit. But on
a closer examination of the Bill, it is perfectly evident that the Government will receive no such power as this; that if a promotion is to be made in the service, it cannot be done by the Government or by the Governor in Council on their own responsibility. That promotion must be made in conjunction with the deputy head of the department in which it is to be made, in conjunction w'ith the Civil Service Commission which administers this Act, and when the promotion is made, there must be a certificate from the Civil Service Commission as the result of an examination which may be oral or written. That certificate must be issued by the Civil Service Commission, and the power ultimately rests with the Civil Service Commission and no other body as to the promotion to be made.
As regards the question of transfer from one department to another, we find that the procedure as set out in the Bill is practically the same. The Government have no authority under this Bill, nor have they any authority under the Civil Service Act to make any transfer unless they have the recommendation of the department from which a man is to be transferred, the recommendation of the department to which the man is to be transferred and the certificate of the Civil Service Commission as the result of an examination, be that examination oral or written. When the Government have that, then the transfer may be made. The real determining factor in connection with those transfers is the Civil Service Commission, because they are the body which must issue the certificate.
For those reasons, I think that this Bill should be sent to the committee to find out whether or not any valid objections may be set forth by the Civil Service Commission or by any of the deputies to the operation of it. I would be the last man to wish to see the old patronage system brought hack again. My hon. friend said that if we pass this measure, then the railway employees will all he under the thumb of the Government. He also stated that the administration of the Government railways in this country was absolutely free from party patronage. I had the privilege and honour of living in the same province in which he lived; I had occasion to use and associated with others who used the Intercolonial railway, and I never knew of any organization or institution in this or any other country in which there was more political patronage used than was used in

connection with the administration of the Intercolonial railway in the Maritime Provinces and Quebec. But he need not have any have any worry about the administration of the railways in this country, because the railways themselves are manned by their organizations and brotherhoods, and there is not a single member in this House, there is not a single politician, I believe, in this country who would dare lay his fingers, as regards political patronage, on the securing of appointments or promotions in connection any of the Services connected with the operation of our national railways.
I have just one further remark to make which is occasioned by a remark of the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), when he stated very broadly his views regarding the removal of the Outside Service from the operation of the Civil Service Act. He said that he would advocate that the whole Outside Service be removed. My judgment is that this Government should not lay its hands upon the Outside Service any more than it does on the Inside Service, and that the Outside Service of this country should be allowed to remain under the operation of the Civil Service Act. I am sure that the Outside Civil Service in Western Canada want to remain under the Civil Service Act, and it would be an unwise act, a retrogade step for this Government to undertake in the slightest degree to remove the Outside Service from the administration of the Civil Service Act.



P.E.I.),

[Stage Direction]
Pacaud,
Leduc,
Proulx,
Fournier,
Robb.
Mr. MACNUTT:: hon. member for Otherwise, I would amendment.
Thompson (Weyburn), Nicholson (Queens, P.E.I.),
Crothers,
Stewart (Lanark), Stewart (Hamilton), Casselman,
Middlebro,
I was paired with the Selkirk (Mr. Hay), have voted for the


Mr. PROULX:: I was paired with the
hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Stewart). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. LEDUC:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Stewart). Otherwise, I would have voted for the amendment.


Georges Henri Boivin: Had I not been paired
with the hon. and gallant member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes), I would have voted for the amendment.
Main motion agreed to on division and Bill read the second time.


Arthur Meighen: I move that the Bill be referred to the special committee appointed by this House on Friday last.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
, On the motion of Right Hon. Arthur Meighen (Prime Minister) for Committee of Supply:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I submit that it is
wholly unreasonable to ask the House to go into Supply at this hour of the morning. We have been sitting here since three o'clock on Monday afternoon; it is now a quarter-past one on Tuesday morning. The business we have been discussing is business that the Government has brought before the House. There has been no attempt to prolong the discussion in any unreasonable way, and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the public business cannot be carried on six days of the week by this Parliament, as a deliberative assembly, in the way it should be carried on if the Prime Minister insists on holding sittings after midnight and on to two, three and four o'clock in the morning. I think the attitude of the Prime Minister in trying to force the business of the country at this hour of the morning is not. only unreasonable so far as members of the House are concerned, but it is also wholly unfair to the public.
The public have a right to know what Parliament is doing. They want to know what is being said and done here, but it is impossible for reports to go out to the public of the proceedings of the House after half-past one or two o'clock in the morning. The public have a right to know what is being done in the way of expenditure of public money, and it is that part of the business of the country which the Government now proposes to take up. I might also say that the members pf the House have committees to attend. There is not a single member who has not some public business to attend to in the morning, and it is impossible for hon. gentlemen to attend to their business, particularly on committees, if they are to sit here until two and three o'clock in the morning.
I would also like to say a word on behalf of the officers of the House. There are the members of the Hansard staff, who have a very difficult task to perform. They have to take down what is said here line by line, and word for word, and it becomes physically impossible for men to do that class of work after they have been subjected to the strain of very tong hours. There is not an officer of this House who has not duties of a responsible nature to discharge. Every one of these men is subjected to a strain that should not be imposed upon him.
I might also mention the Printing Bureau. There is a large staff of employees who are entitled to at least some consideration. There is the Press, represented in the Gallery by different correspondents. They have very responsible duties, which they are anxious to discharge in a faithful and efficient manner, but with continuous late sittings it is wholly impossible for them to discharge their duties in a way that is fair and right. I submit that night after night we have had to tolerate this condition of affairs in the discussion of public business in a way that is not befitting a deliberative assembly charged with the high and responsible duties which this Parliament is called upon to discharge.


Arthur Meighen: I have no desire to enter into any controversy as to the wisdom of sitting much later to-night, and I rise merely to lay before the House in a simple way the only idea that was in my mind in calling for Supply. The House knows, of course, the rules of Parliament whereby we are compelled to enter into Supply of every department on Monday, Tuesday or Wed-

nesday; otherwise that department is not available for Thursday or Friday. Almost invariabley this session we have been met by one motion or another on the motion for Supply, a debate, protracted very often far into the night, has ensued, the motion for Supply has not been reached until early in the morning, and then the motion has been met with a protest that it is not fair to hon. members or to anybody at all to go into Supply at that hour. That has been the process throughout this session. To-day we 'have had a debate on a simple motion to refer a question to a Special Committee of Parliament, which Parliament has already appointed, and notwithstanding the assurance of the Government that the whole question, irrespective entirely of the specific terms of the Bill would be submitted to the House for further consideration, a debate has taken place which has occupied the whole day. It is now one o'clock in the morning and we are asked to abandon the day and not even get into committee, so that we may be able to proceed on Thursday and Friday with Supply. Now, I suggest to hon. gentlemen that we go into Supply on one of the departments which we have not so far entered upon, so that we may take up Supply on Thursday and Friday. We do not even ask that an item be passed; we simply ask that we have this day count in Supply in one of the departments. There are five or six departments that have not yet been touched, and we shall not get through at the rate of progress we are making unless we can at least utilize Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday to go into Supply. The only suggestion I make now is that we go into Supply, take up an item, and then rise and report progress so that we may relieve the terrible strain upon the officers of the House, upon the press, and upon the Printing Bureau.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What the Prime Minister says is all very well in regard to this particular moment, but I submit that Monday has been considered Private Members' day and it is not customary for the Government to appropriate that day for Government business as early in the session as had been done this year. There is no reason why the Opposition, or members of the House generally, should be deprived of the privilege of taking up any matter they please on the motion to go into Supply before certain departments are called. The right of hon. members in that regard should be preserved, and I do 
not think we should be asked in any way to concede what the Prime Minister has requested at the present moment.


Arthur Meighen: We intend to move into Supply every day, so that the hon. member will have any opportunity he desires to move an amendment again. He will have that opportunity to-morrow, and for that matter he has it now, although I do not want to suggest that to him. Surely it is not unreasonable on the part of the Government that we should seek to have one department a day. The object of the rule was to see to it that there was a motion to go into Supply for each department on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. We are complying with the rule and will go into Supply to-morrow and the next day too. We could, when we are in Supply, comply with the rule and call one department and then another. The Chair has so ruled.


Mr. CAHILL:: When was that ruling made?


Arthur Meighen: Some weeks ago.


Frank S. Cahill: Not yet.


Arthur Meighen: That ruling was given, but we need not discuss the point now. How is it unreasonable on my part to suggest that we merely go into .Supply, then rise at once, and move into Supply both to-morrow and the next day?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not going to offer further objection, but I would point out to my hon. friend and to the country that we are forced into the position of discussing these matters at halfpast one in the morning, for no reason other than that the Prime Minister and the Government saw fit to bring on the session much later than it should have been called and are now seeking to get through the public business as speedily as they possibly can.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If hon. gentlemen think that they will get away any the sooner by creating a disturbance at this hour, they are mistaken. If there is one protest above another which we have a right to make it is that, so far as this Parliament is concerned, it is ceasing altogether to be of the nature of a deliberative assembly. We are having matters brought forward day after day and rushed through without an opportunity of considering their significance, or their importance. We had

Grand Trunk legislation introduced a day or two ago, which was given the first and second reading,-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Every courtesy ought to be extended the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) for the purpose of discussing the business of the House; but he has already spoken twice on this motion and it would hardly be fair for him to make a third speech without at least asking the unanimous consent of the House.


Arthur Meighen: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that that consent will be given to enable the hon. gentleman to continue his remarks.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member have leave to proceed with what he has to say?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Apparently the consent is not unanimous.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not think there is any objection; I did not hear any.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not understand
that objection has been taken.


John Allister Currie: Go ahead and talk until 2 o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I had about concluded what I intended to say. I am simply anxious to point out that Parliament has a grave duty to perform, and it ought to be able to discharge its obligations in an intelligent and reasonable manner, having regard to the importance of the public business.


Frank S. Cahill: I just wish to point out to the Prime Minister that what he refers to as a ruling by the Chair with regard to going into different departments when in Supply is an opinion which he himself expressed. No ruling was given by the Chairman this session on this question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Frank S. Cahill: I have the privilege of
expressing myself on the motion to go into Supply, and my hon. friends need not get excited about it. This was the opinion expressed by the Prime Minister and not by the Chair, I say. The right hon. gentleman also stated that a number of amendments were moved every time on the last two occasions when the motion was made to go
into Supply. There were no amendments to the motion to go into Supply, as far as I can remember.
Motion agreed to and the House went into Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Customs and Inland Revenue Salaries, $532,947.50.


Mr. WIGMORE:: It is not the intention
of the Government that we should proceed further, and I therefore move that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.
On the motion of the Right Hon. Mr. Meighen the House adjourned at 1.30 a.m., Tuesday.
Tuesday, May 3, 1921.